AnalysisA multivariate analysis of the energy intensity of sprawl versus compact living in the U.S. for 2003
Introduction
There are many compelling reasons for supporting compact development and a high level of household consumption in general, but here we are concerned specifically with the energy required to support that lifestyle. We explore the question of how much difference compact living makes when compared to sprawl in terms of total energy use by households. Newman and Kenworthy (1999) claim that residents in compact areas drive between one-third and one-fourth as much as do residents of areas characterized by sprawl. Another study by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that as density doubles, automobile use may drop as much as 40% (Benfield et al., 1999). These findings, looking at only the transportation impact of sprawl, are often extrapolated to imply that the difference is large, perhaps a factor of two or more, especially if other aspects' consumption were to be considered. However, one should consider two complicating issues:
- 1.
Money saved through reduced direct energy use — by walking instead of driving, for example — is often spent on other, non-energy products that themselves require energy.
- 2.
The comparison of households requires accounting for different total expenditure amounts (the level of affluence), usually through a comparison of the households' energy intensity, i.e., the average energy consumed per dollar spent by each and the total energy used by households over a given time period.
These two issues have been addressed in “energy cost of living” studies starting around 1973 and continuing today (Bullard & Herendeen, 1975, Herendeen & Tanaka, 1976, Herendeen, 1978, Bullard et al., 1978, Herendeen et al., 1981, Vringer & Blok, 1995, Lenzen, 1998, Pachauri, 2004, Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2005, Moll et al., 2005, Holden & Norland, 2005, Bin & Dowlatabadi, 2005, Lenzen et al., 2006, Norman et al., 2006). All these studies have used a combination of energy intensities of consumer expenditures derived from economic input–output accounts along with surveys of consumer expenditure patterns. Because of data limitations, none of these studies have an unambiguous method for differentiating urban versus rural settings or compact living versus sprawl. Some do, however, make an effort in that direction. Results from several studies show that rural households typically have about 10% higher energy intensities than urban households (Herendeen, 1978, Herendeen et al., 1981, Lenzen, 1998). This paper updates the U.S. results to the year 2003.
In the conventional literature, suburban and rural households, often characterized as sprawl, are claimed to be more energy intensive than households in dense, compact central city locations, which are often described as “compact living” (Gillham, 2002, Burchell et al., 2005, Holden & Norland, 2005). This difference is implicitly related to lifestyle and consumption patterns of households located in different spatial configurations. Residences in central cities are assumed to be smaller and more compact, thus requiring less energy. They are also assumed to depend less on automobiles because of better access to mass transit, more walkable neighborhoods, proximity to shopping and schools, and the higher cost of maintaining personal vehicles. Thus, a move toward compact living instead of sprawl would be expected to significantly reduce energy consumption (Gillham, 2002, Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). However, household energy consumption is not restricted to residential and vehicular fuel (i.e., direct energy); all human activities have energy implications. Therefore, a system boundary drawn around direct use of energy only would yield an incomplete assessment of household energy use. A given household can have different energy requirements based on different consumption patterns that support its lifestyle. If we draw the system boundary around consumption patterns in general, then we must include all the indirect energy associated with all other household consumption. This approach provides a better understanding of the energy intensity and total energy consumption of households in the context of various spatial and demographic predictors.
The definition of sprawl itself has been a controversial topic for decades. We define sprawl as rural areas or areas with low population size in our analysis. Contemporary literature on sprawl also attributes one or more of the following characteristics to this type of development: outward expansion from central business district into undeveloped areas, discontinuous or “leapfrog” development, rigid separation of housing and commercial development, high automobile dependence, poor accessibility, lack of well-defined activity centers, and scattered development without systematic large-scale or regional land-use planning (Galster et al., 2001, Ewing et al., 2002, Bruegman, 2005, Burchell et al., 2005). Perhaps the most comprehensive studies that explore the resource impact of sprawl have been produced by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) in two reports on the costs of sprawl (Burchell et al., 1998, Burchell et al., 2000). These studies were motivated by a 1974 analysis by the Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC) entitled The Costs of Sprawl (RERC, 1974) and consider the impacts of sprawl on infrastructure, transportation, energy, environment, and quality of life.
In this paper we estimate the energy intensity and total energy consumption of households in sprawl versus compact living. Although we analyze the entire spectrum of household expenditures, we pay particular attention to “sprawl-related” expenditures. These include all housing-related expenditures, including residential fuel and all vehicle-related expenditures, including gasoline. We statistically analyze the effects of spatial variables such as location (urban versus rural) and degree of urbanity (population size of the area of residence) on energy consumption. We compare these effects with other demographic predictors such as family size, number of vehicles, and building type. A list of terms and symbols used in this paper is given in Table 1.
Section snippets
General Framework
We estimate the total energy requirements for households by multiplying expenditures in dollars by appropriate energy intensities in British thermal units (Btu) per dollar (1 Btu = 1055 J). We use expenditure as the primary independent variable instead of income. By using expenditure, we avoid neglecting transfer payments (public assistance, social security benefits, etc.).
Energy Intensities
Bullard and Herendeen (1975) used input–output analysis to determine the energy intensities of various goods and services, as
General Framework
The general model used in this analysis for calculating total household energy requirements, E, is shown in Eq. (1):where εi = energy intensity of item i and Yi = expenditure on item i.
Energy intensities for all consumption categories are obtained in purchaser prices and multiplied with expenditure. Additionally, our estimate of total energy (E) includes the energy cost associated with the annualized value of an owned home (housing structure) and positive changes in assets that include
Discussion
The results of this cross-sectional study of U.S. households for 2003 indicate that rural households are 17% more energy intensive than urban households and households living in areas with the lowest population size ( less than 125,000) are 19% more energy intensive than those living in areas with the highest population size (greater than 4 million). This takes into account the actual circumstances (bigger housing, longer commute, etc.) of people's lives. If we only consider the effect of
References (42)
- et al.
Consumer lifestyle approach to U.S. energy use and the related CO2 emissions
Energy Policy
(2005) - et al.
The energy cost of goods and services
Energy Policy
(1975) - et al.
Net energy analysis — handbook for combining process and input–output analysis
Resources and Energy
(1978) Total energy cost of household consumption in Norway, 1973
Energy
(1978)- et al.
Energy cost of living, 1972–73
Energy
(1981) Energy and greenhouse gas cost of living for Australia during 1993/94
Energy
(1998)- et al.
A comparative multivariate analysis of household energy requirements in Australia, Brazil, Denmark, India and Japan
Energy
(2006) An analysis of cross-sectional variations in total household energy requirements in India using micro survey data
Energy Policy
(2004)- et al.
The direct and indirect energy requirements of households in the Netherlands
Energy Policy
(1995) - et al.
Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint
Ecological Economics
(2008)
Once there were Greenfields: How Urban Sprawl is Undermining America's Environment, Economy and Social Fabric
Sprawl: A Compact History
The Costs of Sprawl Revisited
TCRP Report 74 Costs of Sprawl 2000
Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development
United States Department of Commerce, Input–Output Accounts Data
Computer file — SAS Data Sets — v.2
Indirect and direct energy requirements of city households in Sweden: options for reduction, lessons from modeling
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Embodied energy and economic value in the United States economy: 1963, 1967, and 1972
Resources and Energy
Economic Input–Output Life Cycle Assessment
Cited by (56)
Emissions inequality: Disparities in income, expenditure, and the carbon footprint in Austria
2022, Ecological EconomicsForecasting Chinese economic growth, energy consumption, and urbanization using two novel grey multivariable forecasting models
2021, Journal of Cleaner ProductionCitation Excerpt :Urban environment transformation theory posits that urban development and industrial production exhibit a periodic demand for energy, the energy consumption efficiency characteristic of ‘low-high-low’ inverted-U-type urban transformation of the main milestones includes improving energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy development, and low carbon industry as an alternative, to facilitate innovative development of green industry and towns (Barnes et al.,2005). Compact town theory refers to the idea that high-density urban development can save space, improve the efficiency of public facilities, and reduce energy consumption, however, if urban infrastructure construction lags, urbanization will lead to more severe energy consumption problems (Burton et al., 2000; Shammin, 2010; Liu et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2014). Abundant empirical studies on the relationship between energy consumption and urbanization are available.
The scale and drivers of carbon footprints in households, cities and regions across India
2021, Global Environmental Change