The Costs and Benefits of Alternative Development Patterns: A Paradigm of Two Universities

asif, numra and Asghar, Zahid (2016): The Costs and Benefits of Alternative Development Patterns: A Paradigm of Two Universities.

Abstract

Cities are places where innovation, invention, technological and knowledge spillovers occur. However, they are also places where unemployment, crime, pollution, and exploitation of human resources occur. One major problem of cities of today is the low density leapfrog/scattered development pattern that leads to high service provision costs and reduces the welfare of society. This study aims at comparing the cost of smart versus scattered development patterns for Pakistan. Due to data limitations two universities are selected for analysis purpose. On the basis of observational analysis QAU is labeled as leapfrog/scattered whereas COMSATS is categorized as Compact Development. We hypothesize that low density scattered development leads to higher service provision and social costs and compact development can lead to cost savings. The empirical exercise consisted of a randomized survey indicate that COMSATS students have better access to different facilities due to compact development pattern. The ordinal probit model was employed on survey results. Connectivity was found to be significantly associated with walkability though association is not the same as causation. The comparative analysis for service provision cost showed striking cost differential, as QAU spends a lot more than COMSATS to provide basic facilities. The results prove the baseline hypothesis. It is suggested that. QAU should use elements of smart growth like infill development and should make better use of large land endowment rather than it has become a curse. Both universities should work to raise social interaction among students. The real benefits of smart growth lie with the cities, and each city should apply smart growth to achieve cost savings and higher social capital.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Sprawl, Density, Social Costs, inefficient Land Endowment
• Subjects: R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R1 - General Regional Economics > R10 - General; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R1 - General Regional Economics > R14 - Land Use Patterns; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R3 - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location > R38 - Government Policy; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R5 - Regional Government Analysis > R59 - Other

References

Carruthers, J. I., & Ulfarsson, G. F. (2003). Urban sprawl and the cost of public services. Environment and Planning, 30, 503-522.

Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65-84.

Freeman, L. (2001). The Effect of Neighborhood on Social Ties. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1).

Fodor, E. V. (1997). The Real Cost of Growth in Oregon. Population and Environment, 18, 373-388. Retrieved June 11, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 27503533.

Glaeser, E., & Kahn, M. (2013). Sprawl and Urban Growth. In Handbook of Urban and Regional Economics.(Vol. 4).

Gordon, P., & Richardson, H. W. (1997) Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal. Journal of American Planning Association, 63, 95-106.

Government of Pakistan, (2011), Task Force on Urban Development. Planning Commission, Islamabad.

Government of Pakistan, (2011). Pakistan; Framework for Economic Growth, Planning Commission, Islamabad.

Handy, S. (2002). Smart Growth and the Transportation-Land Use Connection: What Does The Research Tell Us? A Research Synopsis Prepared for New Urbanism and Smart Growth, University of Maryland.

Ives-Dewey, D. (2007). The Multi-Family Myth: Exploring the Fiscal Impacts of Apartments in the Suburbs. Middle States Geographer, 40, 39-46. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/geog_facpub/12

Keyes L, D. (1979). Channeling Metropolitan Growth:In What Direction, Towards Which End.Land and Contemporary Problems, 43(2), 239-253

Litman, T. (2007). Economic Value of Walkability. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.vtpi.org on 03-01-2015.

Litman, T. (2014). Evaluating Accessibility For Transportation Planning Measuring People's ability to Reach Desired Goods and Activities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.vtpi.org on 15-10-2014.

Litman, T. (2014). Smart Growth Savings What We Know About Public Infrastructure and Service Cost Savings, And How They are Misrepresented By Critics. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.vtpi.org on 12-09-2014.

Litman, T. (2015). Analysis of Public Policies That Unintentionally Encourage and Subsidize Urban Sprawl. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Supporting Paper Commissioned by LSE Cities at the London School of Economics and Political Science, on Behalf of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (www.newclimateeconomy.net) for the New Climate Economy Cities Program.

Nabil, N., & Abd Eldayem, G. (2014). Influence of mixed land-use on realizing the social capital. HRBC Journal.

Slack, E. (2002), Municipal Finance and the Pattern of Urban Growth, C. D. Howe Institute Commentary no. 160, Centre for Urban and Community Studies at the University of Toronto.

Zhao, P. (2013). The Impact of Urban Sprawl on Social Segregation in Beijing and a Limited Role for Spatial Planning. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 104(5), 571-587.