Prepared by Anna L. Haines, Ph.D.

Are houses ringing your area lakes? Is there more traffic in your community? Is the neighboring cornfield starting to grow houses? Is your community concerned about sprawl? Are your community�s ills (or at least some of them) blamed on sprawl? If your community is rural, do you see sprawl there? Have you wondered how to deal with this phenomenon called sprawl either in the short-term or within your comprehensive plan? If so, this first article defines the term �sprawl,� and discusses two characterizations of sprawl that are relevant for Wisconsin communities. A second article in the next Tracker will discuss the effects of  sprawl, and suggest ways to deal with sprawl through the comprehensive planning process and the selection of appropriate implementation tools.

Sprawl in the headlights

On August 25, 2002, the Minneapolis Star Tribune ran a story entitled �River Sprawls? Tranquil Wisconsin town now in path of Twin Cities growth.� The crux of the story is that three large, proposed developments could nearly double River Falls� current population of 12,000 within the next five to ten years. An additional 6,000 people would be accommodated within these three developments. Fully built out these developments would contain a total of 2,045 units (mostly single family homes) on 845 acres.

The former Mayor Katie Chaffee was quoted as saying �poor planning also has brought developers knocking on River Falls� door.� The other factors bringing development to River Falls includes an improved four-lane highway from River Falls to I-94, less expensive land costs in comparison to areas closer to the Twin Cities, proximity to downtown St. Paul (30 miles), a small, charming University town, and a nationally known trout stream that runs through the city. All these factors are not only making River Falls a desirable place to live, but a desirable place to develop (Fiedler 2002).

In addition to local news stories around Wisconsin about the concern over growth, development, and sprawl, several studies have looked at the effects of sprawl. A recent study investigated the question: �What happens to water supplies when we replace our natural areas with roads, parking lots and buildings?� The major finding from this study was that increasing amounts of impervious cover (see previous newsletter articles about this topic) have resulted in a potential high loss of groundwater. Rather than water getting filtered and recharging vital groundwater resources, it runs off the land. Groundwater resources are critical both for drinking water (34% of Americans and 75% of Wisconsinites rely on this source for drinking water (WI Groundwater 2002)) and for surface water (rivers and streams), where 2/3 of Americans get their drinking water (American Rivers et al. 2002).

Another recent study examined metropolitan areas around the U.S. and asked to what extent higher levels of sprawl had an impact on quality of life issues. This study used 22 variables to rate metro areas on four different aspects of their development. The report concluded that metropolitan areas with more sprawl experienced the following:

• �More Driving. The daily distance driven per person is more than ten miles more in the most sprawling places than in the least sprawling, adding up to 40 more miles of automobile travel each day for a family of four. [In addition, over a five year period (1992-1997), Americans' drive time increased by more than 40 hours per year.]

• More Traffic Deaths. The ten most sprawling places average 36 traffic deaths for every 100,000 people, while the least sprawling average 23 deaths per 100,000.

• More Air Pollution. Ozone pollution levels are as much as 41 parts per billion higher in the most sprawling areas, which can mean the difference between safe, �code green� air quality and �code red� air quality� (Ewing et al. 2002).

What is this thing called SPRAWL?

Clearly many people are concerned about sprawl. But what is it? Generally, people know sprawl when they see it; however, for communities to deal with sprawl we need a more precise definition. Many organizations have attempted to provide a definition, but it turns out that the definition depends on that organization�s perspective, usually polarized between a pro-growth and an anti-sprawl viewpoint.

Below are definitions from various organizations:

• The Heritage Foundation: �Sprawl simply refers to the low-density, residential development beyond a city�s limits.�

• Reason Public Policy Institute: �Many people think sprawl is synonymous with suburbanization�Another way of characterizing this process is thinking of sprawl as the �transitional period between rural and urban land use.�

• National Trust for Historic Preservation, Rural Heritage Program: �Sprawl is dispersed, low-density development that is generally located at the fringe of an existing settlement and over large areas of previously rural landscape. It is characterized by segregated land uses and dominated by the automobile.�

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: �[Sprawl is a] pattern of growth [that] has largely occurred in an unplanned, ad hoc fashion.�

• The Sierra Club: �Sprawl�scattered development that increases traffic, saps local resources and destroys open space.�

• Natural Resources Defense Council: �Sprawling development eats up farms, meadows, and forests, turning them into strip malls and subdivisions that serve cars better than people.�

(Gillham 2002: 4).

Photo credit: Landslides Aerial Photography

These definitions primarily focus on areas immediately adjacent to a city. This form of sprawl is often called urban sprawl. From these above definitions we can further characterize urban sprawl as the following:

If we could examine Wisconsin from �a bird�s eye view,� we would see many of these characteristics just outside of our urban areas. But looking from above, especially if we could examine the landscape over a twenty year period, we also would see rural areas¹ experiencing scattered development. What is this phenomenon? It is not urban sprawl, since many of these rural areas are far from urban areas and few of the above characteristics apply. So, what are the characteristics of �rural� sprawl? For Wisconsin at least the following characteristics are evident:

Photo credit: Landslides Aerial Photography

• Seasonal or recreational homes
  One phenomenon in rural counties is a striking number of seasonal homes. Across northern Wisconsin, for example, the percentage of seasonal homes can be 50% and higher, especially in areas where there are many lakes and rivers. In some counties, there are more than 10,000 seasonal homes. In Oneida County almost 40% of the housing stock is for seasonal, recreational or occasional use as compared with about 6% for Wisconsin. This is significant when you consider that the seasonal population can be higher than the total year-round county population.

• Low density residential areas
  Rural areas may have two types of low density development. Lake development as one type may be similar to an area located outside an urban area, i.e., 2-5 acre lots and or smaller size lots. Outside that lake development ring, low density may be very different and may be characterized by much larger parcel sizes: 10-, 35-, and/or 80- acre residential lots, for example.

• Inaccessible open space
  Many seasonal homes are waterfront properties either on a lake or river/stream. When a substantial number of homes circle a lake, there is normally access to the lake itself for boats; however, there is little other public access. The public cannot walk along a shore, since they would be trespassing on private property. Forested land becomes inaccessible if the landowner removes it from one of the state forest tax law programs with public access.

• Local economy may rely on seasonal residents and tourism
  The national economy has made a transition from a heavy reliance on manufacturing to a more service-based economy. In Wisconsin where there is an emphasis on tourism, a service-based economy is even more pronounced and can mean boom and bust cycles locally depending on the whims of weather and the national or regional economy. Again using Oneida County as an example, about 25% of the employed civilian population works in this service-based economy; this compares with Wisconsin at 19%.

• Conflict between residential and working lands may be increasing (agricultural, forested, non-metallic mining).
  As rural areas become more populated, traditional rural industries are experiencing more conflict with rural residential neighbors. As rural areas become more populated with seasonal and year-round residents, we will likely see more conflict between these rural interests.

This article has provided two characterizations of sprawl � one urban and the other rural - that seem to fit Wisconsin�s growth and development pattern. This does not mean that it is the only types of sprawl one might see. These are two characterizations to begin a conversation about identifying sprawl in Wisconsin. The next article will discuss some of the effects of these two forms of sprawl: aesthetic, economic, fiscal, environmental, and traffic-related. In addition, the next article will address how to deal with both types of sprawl and define another familiar, but ill-defined, term: smart growth.

References

Ewing, Reid, Pendall, Rolf, and Chen, Don. 2002. Measuring Sprawl And Its Impact: The Character & Consequences of Metropolitan Expansion. Smart Growth America.  www.smartgrowthamerica.com/ 

Fielder, Terry. 2002. �River Sprawls? Tranquil Wisconsin town now in path of Twin Cities growth.� Minneapolis Star Tribune. Aug 25. www.startribune.com/stories/1282/3186144.html.

Gillham, Oliver. 2002. The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

Sandin, Jo. 2000. Poll finds support for compact cities. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Oct. 17.

Wisconsin Groundwater Coordinating Council. July 2002. Groundwater and Its Role in Comprehensive Planning. Comprehensive Planning and Groundwater Fact Sheet 1.

Resources

American Planning Association Policy Guide on Smart Growth � www.planning.org/policyguides/smartgrowth.htm  

Citizens for a Better Environment � www.cbemw.org/wisconsin.html 

1000 Friends of Wisconsin � www.1000friendsofwisconsin.com/ 

Planning Commissioners Journal: Sprawl Guide � www.plannersweb.com/sprawl/home.html 

Smart Growth Online � www.smartgrowth.org/default.asp 

Smart Growth America � www.smartgrowthamerica.com/ 

State Environmental Resource Center � http://serconline.org/sprawl/ 

Wisconsin Chapter of the American Planning Association � www.wisconsinplanners.org/ 

Jane Silberstein, Kassandra Walbrun, Lynn Markham, Rebecca Vander Kelen, and Glenn Bowles have reviewed this article for form and content. Any errors, mistakes and omissions remain the responsibility of the author.

¹ Rural areas are those counties that are not adjacent to counties that are considered metropolitan. Metropolitan counties in Wisconsin include Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, Sheboygan, Calumet, Winnebago, Outagamie, Brown, Marathon, Eau Claire and Chippewa, St. Croix and Pierce, La Crosse, Rock, and Dane.