Urban Sprawl in Malaysia

6th International Real Estate Research 24-25/04/2012
Symposium (IRERS) 2012
COST OF URBAN SPRAWL IN

MALAYSIA
Presentation for IRERS 2012, INSPEN, SELANGOR,
Wednesday April 24-25 , 2012.
Shahriza binti Osman

Prof. Sr. Dr Abdul Hadi bin Haji Nawawi
Assoc. Prof Dr Jamalunlaili bin Abdullah
Faculty of Architecture, Planning& Surveying, University Technology MARA
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
CONCEPTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
FRAMEWORK OF URBAN SPRAWL
FOR THE COSTS IN NORTHERN
METROPOLITAN
OF URBAN
REGIONS OF
SPRAWL MALAYSIA
INSPEN 1
WHY COST OF URBAN SPRAWL IS

IMPORTANT ?
Hyunsun The Asian Pacific regions experienced faster &
Choi (2008) intense urbanization than any regions in the world
In 2000 the world population grew to 2.9 billion and
expected to increased to 5 billion by 2030, and 60 %
of population are expected to live in urban areas.
Many Asian cities are experiencing urban pathology
such as poverty, inequality, lack of proper housing ,
sanitation and an ongoing urban sprawl
Smart growth after 10 years no evidence it have
had any effect on development patterns in
developed countries
the cost of urban sprawl have been

talked for decades, often without a full
understanding what these costs are and Burchell(1998)
to what level they should be assigned.
WHY URBAN SPRAWL IS

COSTLY?
It is costly because it is the spread-out development of separated subdivisions, office parks, malls
and strip shopping centers growing beyond existing cities and town.
development
It costs communities because it requires longer roads, extended sewer and water infrastructure and
more gasoline and maintenance for the cars to bring people to work and shop. And also increase in
communities taxes
It is costly to government because of the large investments required to extend roadways and other
types of infrastructure that transmit water, sewage, electricity, and other services long distances to
Goverment reach relatively fewer numbers of people.
Many researchers have found that there were substantial costs imposed by allowing low density
development (Isard and Coughlin 1957:Frank 1989: Archer 1973: RERC 1989:Buchell 1998 and Speir
and Stephenson 2002)Substantial cost savings can be achieved by increasing urban densities and
researchers
locating new development near existing built-up areas.
INSPEN 2
WHAT IS COST OF URBAN SPRAWL?

These cost involve
the additional /incremental The resources physical, monetary,
costs measured in relative expended relative to temporal and
to the type, density and/ or type, density a nd
location of sprawling social/psychological
development as compared l oca tion of resources. It involve
to smart growth . development costs to
( Burchell 1998) individual,,community
(Winsor 2003) and society
Incremental/additional Real costs tha t ta xpayers

investment costs of urban unknowingly pay through increasing
services rising as cities grow property ta xes, utility prices or by
larger and imposed by in-
s pending more time waiting i n
migrants tend to get shared
among both new and old tra ffi c congestion. Cos t must be
residents of community mea sured in terms of ca pital
i nvestment a nd resourse
(TCRP 1996) depletion.(Sierra Club Report 2002)
ISSUES ON COSTS OF URBAN SPRAWL

Di fficulty of breaking down the real costs of operation, maintenance a nd
i nvestment a t level of less densely populated or l ess distance from centre
Methodologic
al problem Archer 1973,RERC 1989
Deta iled information relative to the costs of servi ces is rarely public a nd
i ts a ccessibility requires the effective involvement of public utilities i n the
understanding of data
Accounting
Fi s cal a nalysis
The publication of information regarding the l evel of financial

a djustments between centre and periphery, or between more or less
densely populated areas represent a s ensitive i ssue i n the relationship
political between different communes within one urban areas.
(Halleux et. all 2008)
INSPEN 3
Literature reviews on Costs of Urban

Sprawl
First, there are two types of studies on
Strong
different
Costs of Urbancosts:
Public Spending rel ationship
between s prawl
sprawl studies studies pa tterns of
development and
i ncreased private
Focus on Focus on public a nd ca pital a nd
infrastructure service costs operating costs.
Hi gher
costs i nfrastructure
ca pi tal cost
Relate to Relate to final Hi gher operating
intermediate government cos t for
muni ciples
government outputs(Ladd 1992) More a dverse
outputs publ ic fiscal
i mpact
Hi gher a ggregate
l a nd cost
Burchell et al.2005
Specific scale:per capita/per unit cost
Neighbouhood level Sub-regional level Regional level

Hi gher density,lower The s patial pattern of The s patial distribution
per ca pita length urba nized of urba n areas a nd its
di s tribution lines or a reas,especially degree a s sociated servi ces
s ewer collection lines. of centralization and a reas a ffect per- ca pita
Doubek,Zenetti conta giousness of built- cos t urban s ystem with
1999,Ecopl an2000 up a rea is of particular a hi gher concentration
i mportant of bui lt-up a reas in
RERC 1974
Ca rruther,Ulfarssas centra l cities are more
2003,Spi er Stephenson l i kely to benefit from
2002 effi ciency gains offered
by economic of s cale
Archer 1973,Wa ssmer
2004
INSPEN 4
WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING?

Public
Infrastructure
costs COST VARIATIONS
services
DUE TO DIFFERENCES costs More adverse
IN DENSITY,LOT public fiscal
SIZE,TYPE OF
DWELLINGS,PROXIMIT impact
Y OF SERVICES
INFRASTRUCTURE COST
IS PERMANENT-INFILL Most
DEVELOPMENT sprawling
suburbanized
Time municipalities
Development have lower
cost
FIRST GENERATION STUDIES

Conclusion-the first methodology difficulty is to isolate the cost of new urbanization
and dispersion, without the risk of attaining to the new area totality of infrastructure
First study strong critism to Archer study since the calculations did not take into
1963-Howard
County-effect account the advantages of new connections in the asorbption of the
of costs of existing infrastructures(primary network and treatment plant
development
pattern on
road length.
Archer 1973 1974 study by RERC in US neglect fiscal cost
of sprawl
1967- Kain first study to quantify the cost The result confirmed that
public service of urban sprawl and laid down savings on capital facility
costs at Downing & how and why sprawling low
density is more expensive than costs but fail to look at the
varying Gastely 1977 demand side of the market.
compact forms of development
density
INSPEN 5
SECOND GENERATION STUDIES
Snyder & Bird 1998 new Gabriel Dekel 1997

infrastructure cost + taxes Public services costs + Density
Burchell 1998,2004
Infrastructure + housing
development in controlled
and uncontrolled areas.
James Frank1989
Robert Smyth 1986
On-site & off site infrastructure
Public services costs +Taxes
costs + Density
The Transport Research board report

1998
Reports on the cost of urban sprawl that whereas the
cost of certain services may be very little affected by
variations of density or by dispersion(school, health),
the costs of provisions of water services on the other
hand vary enormously.
New calculations on the basis of modelled costs have
concluded that the costs of distance from the center
could vary considerabily from 60% to 66% more for the
supply of water and sewege systems to the most
distance areas, with regards to adjoining urbanization.
(Frank 1989, Speir & Stephenson 2003)
INSPEN 6
THIRD GENERATION STUDIES

Cameron Spier & Kurt Steven(2002) Infrastructure cost relation + lot size,distance,tract dispersion
Dr. S. Bierman/ South Africa (2000) Siendentop/Germany(2009)
Wendell Cox And Joshua(2004) public services and density
Cristina C. Danko/ Portugal(2009) Joshua Arbary/New Zealand(2004)
Stefan KLUG and Yoshitsugu (2007) public service cost + housing neighboorhood
Qi Lei & Prof Lu Bin/ China(2008) Abimbola Tofowomo/Nigeria(2008)
THIRD GENERATION STUDIES

Studies was devoted to a more detailed models taking into
account the relationships between the distance from the
centre and the variation of density, on the basis of
normalised costs.
(Carruthers & Ulfarsson 2003)
The effort to define and measure is ongiong process and
methodological difficulties not measuring real world
sprawl pattern(Bourne 1996)
Methodological aspects=Mathematical models, sensitivity

analysis, fiscal analysis ,econometric model , cost
simulation , case study analysis leads to costs of
infrastructure/public services in relation to density and
locations at three levels of spatial system..
INSPEN 7
NEO CLASSICAL THEORY

Urba n forms is created by the cumulative a ctions(demand) of i ndividual,household
a nd fi rms
Dema nd for land that results in the creation of particular l and uses at specified
l o0ca tions is determined by each l ocations profit making potential relative to a ll
other l ocations.
i ndividuals a nd fi rms making landuse decisions based on this economic
cons ideration create the overall l anduse pattern.
The free market enables this activity to ta ke place in an economically ra tional
wa y.(Ca dwallader 1996;Gottdiener 1994)l abor s upply & a vailability natural
res ources i mpt.
Ea rl y models i dentified center of city a s the single point of market exchange.
Neocl assical theory operates on a few basic assumptionsmainly that economic
decisions are always made rationally based on fully informed evaluations of
utility. In other words, consumers compare goods and purchase the ones having
the greatest utility, or hi ghest personal va lue. The consumers main goal, the
theory s tates, is to maximize personal satisfaction. Li kewise, the goal of companies
i s to maximize profits. When consumers a nd companies both achieve their goals,
ma rkets experience economic equilibrium.
MILLS 1981-Economic theory of sprawl

A growing monocentric city Mills examine landuse in a
Discontinuities in development dynamic model which may
are efficient require that internal parcels be
with held from development and
By assumption, developers held for alternative future uses.
perfectly foresee future export
demands for a citys products and Notes that while sprawl may lead
future housing needs. to higher infrastructure costs, the
larger problem is a failure to
Even though these future needs charge developers marginal cost
are discounted, given the putty- for those services.
clay nature of the development
process,and ex post segregation This is not a land market failure
of landuses, developers reserve per se, rather an issue that can be
more close-in-land for addressed by pricing
commercial use then currently infrastructure appropriately
utilized, and thus force early
residential development farther
away from the center.
INSPEN 8
INSPEN 9
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COST

OF URBAN SPRAWL
DENSITY
the additional
/incremental costs
measured in relative
to the type, density
and/ or location of
sprawling DEVELOPMENT
URBAN FORM development as COST
compared to smart
growth .
( Burchell 1998)
LOCATION
Cost concept
An illustration of how this cost is incurred is when we want
to lay pipe to two houses. The cost of getting to the nearest
one is RM100 and the second house is RM200. Thus, the
marginal cost of adding one house is RM100 and the
marginal (additional) cost of getting to the second house is
RM200. The average cost of service to the two houses is
RM150. If we charge each owner the average cost, then the
first owner is subsidizing the second owner, who pays
RM150 for a connection that cost RM200 to install.
As an application to urban sprawl development, the cost of
connecting a distance house is cheaper than the true cost
because it is subsidized by other people closer to the city
center.
INSPEN 10
WHAT IS URBAN SPRAWL?

IS A PATTERN AND PACE OF URBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT IN WHICH
THE RATE OF LAND CONSUMED FOR URBAN PURPOSES
( BUILD-UP AREA) EXCEEDS THE RATE OF POPULATION GROWTH AND
IN WHICH RESULTS IN INEFFICIENT AND CONSUMPTIVE USES OF LAND
AND ITS ASSOCIATED RESOURCES FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME.
LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT( USEPA 2001)
Sprawl factors are multifaceted: rapid urbanization,
agricultural, industrialization, migration, economic
development, income growth, development policy, market
failure, population growth.
Pattern of urban transition (4 phase) :
Fastest growth in the core of the city
Suburbanization outside the city core
Counter urbanization (sprawl stage)
Re-urbanization
20s Urban Sprawl Impacts in Malaysian Cities

1 . Increase in air pollution =89.2%
2. Traffic congestion =84.6%
3. Increase in respiratory problems on community =81.5%
4. High noise level =80%
5. Loss of soil permeability =80%
6. Loss of natural habitats =78.5%
7. Concentration of poor quality neighbourhoods in the inner city =78.5%
8. Loss of best agricultural land =76.9%
9. Loss of soil biodiversity =75.4%
10. Segregation of residential areas =73.8%
11. Additional costs of the extension of urban infrastructures including utilities
and related services, across the urban region =73.8%
12. Growing consumption of water =73.8%
13. Growth in CO2 emissions =72.3%
14. Insufficient public transport network due to expanding urban area =72.3%
15. Less social interaction =72.3%
16. Increased household expenditure on commuting from home to work over
longer and longer distances =72.3%
17. Increase in travel related energy consumption =70.8%
18. Suboptimal use of abandoned industrial areas (brownfields) = 70.8%
19. Consumption of land =67.7%
20. Exacerbation of social and economic division =67.7%
INSPEN 11
Urban sprawl development consists of three

basic spatial forms:
Low-density sprawl: Low-density sprawl is the consumptive use of land for urban purposes along
the margins of existing metropolitan areas. This type of sprawl is supported by piecemeal
extensions of basic urban infrastructures such as water, sewer, power, and roads.

Ribbon sprawl: Ribbon sprawl is development that follows major transportation corridors outward
from urban cores. Lands adjacent to corridors are developed, but those without direct access
remain in rural uses/covers. Over time these nearby raw lands maybe be converted to urban uses
as land values increase and infrastructure is extended perpendicularly from the major roads and
lines.

Leapfrog development: Leapfrog development is a discontinuous pattern of urbanization, with
patches of developed lands that are widely separated from each other and from the boundaries,
albeit blurred in cases, of recognized urbanized areas. This form of development is the most costly
with respect to providing urban services such as water and sewerage.

Costs of Urban Sprawl
INSPEN 12
MALAYSIAN SCENARIO
M alaysia is experiencing rapid Malaysia will be a developed
urbanization for the past thirty years. country, with three urban
conurbation. The first is Kuala
The M alaysian Government policy of Lumpur urban conurbation
industrialization has created a which had been forcasted to
significant increases in urban contain 8.5 million people. It
population especially in Penang state consist of 45 urban centers from
and Selangor, for example where as far Klang to the west,
Bentong(Pahang) to the east,
urban population has increased from Bukit Beruntung to the North
51% to 86% and 40% to 89% and Seremban to the South.
respectively between 1970 to 2007.It
has been projected that by the year In the North, Georgetown has
2020, 70% of Malaysian population become the urban conurbation
will be living in urban areas for the Northern regions and
(Department of Statistics, M alaysia, leaders in manufacturing
2000). Such an increase in urban activities in Malaysia.
population will result, over time and
space, in a transformation of the In the South is Johore Bahru
physical appearance of many cities urban conurbation. Studies on
in Malaysia. For example, in 2001, these three conurbation showed
that the process of sprawl is
built-up area was approximately 3.3% taking place.
or 768,600 hectares in order to cater
for urban population expansion by
2020.
DENSITY
Density first dimension of urban sprawl(Pendall 2003)
REGIONS 1970-1980 1980-1991 1991-2007
SEBERANG PERAI
TENGAH 3.23 3.42 2.45
SEBERANG PERAI
UTARA 2.10 1.07 0.93
SEBERANG PERAI 1.13 1.58 0.93
SELATAN
TIMUR LAUT 0.56 0.09 0.56
BARAT DAYA 2.28 4.31 2.89
INSPEN 13
REGIONS Urbanization Population Population Net Change in

rate growth density migration built-up
rate Per acre 1990-2000
1990-2000
Timur 100% 0.56 12.81 -702 0.08

Laut
Barat 70.59 2.88 3.88 304 3.35

daya
SPS 65.68 3.64 1.99 3220 5.01
SPT 79.64 2.43 5.00 2133 3.51
SPU 56.95 0.91 3.71 -4946 2.10
INSPEN 14
Population trend 1970-

2007
24
Population trend 1970-
2007 22
60
%
20
40 18
% SPU
20
0
Timur Laut
Population trend
1970-2007
30
20
% 10
0 AAGR of Built Up Area
Population trend 1970- SPT
2007 1985-2000
15 6
5.01
Population trend 1970-2007 5
percentage, %
10 Timur Laut
4 3.35 3.51
% 12 Barat daya
5 3 2.1
10
2 SPS
0 8
Barat daya 1 0.08 SPT
% 6
0
4 SPU
Annual Average Growth Rate of
2 Built Up area 1985-2000
0
SPS
Population trend vs built up area
URBAN SPRAWL EVIDENCE IN NORTHERN

METROPOLITAN REGIONS OF MALAYSIA
REGIONS CHANGES GROWTH RATES CHANGES IN BUILT-UP
1970-2002(%) AREAS 1970-2002(%)
SEBERANG PERAT TENGAH

1.62 3.51
SEBERANG PEWRAI UTARA
2.43 2.10
SEBERANG PERAI SELATAN
3.64 5.01
TIMUR LAUT
0.56 0.08
BARAT DAYA
2.88 3.35
INSPEN 15
Population Density
14 13
12
10 Timur Laut
Barat daya
Population 8
per acre 6 5 SPS
4 4
4 SPT
2 SPU
2
0
Population density Per acre
CONCLUSION
In the West urban sprawl is the consequences of
suburbanization.(Brueckner and Fansler 1983) Sprawl developed
with the development of urbanization, on the edge of cities,the
conversion of land to urban use became more severe and was out
of control, mainly due to the population growth, rising household
income and transportation improvements.
Population density generally decline with distance from the
centre,(Mills 1972)
Penang urban sprawl like China which is mainly due to low density
development and in characterization of urban sprawl ,it is often
descriptive with how it manifest on the ground.
There is decentralization from the central core(Georgetown) to the
urban periphery,(Ewing et.al2002)
INSPEN 16

Urban Sprawl in Malaysia

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Urban Sprawl in Malaysia

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

6th International Real Estate Research 24-25/04/2012

Symposium (IRERS) 2012

COST OF URBAN SPRAWL IN

Shahriza binti Osman

WHY COST OF URBAN SPRAWL IS

the cost of urban sprawl have been

WHY URBAN SPRAWL IS

WHAT IS COST OF URBAN SPRAWL?

Incremental/additional Real costs tha t ta xpayers

ISSUES ON COSTS OF URBAN SPRAWL

The publication of information regarding the l evel of financial

Literature reviews on Costs of Urban

Neighbouhood level Sub-regional level Regional level

WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING?

FIRST GENERATION STUDIES

SECOND GENERATION STUDIES

Snyder & Bird 1998 new Gabriel Dekel 1997

The Transport Research board report

THIRD GENERATION STUDIES

Dr. S. Bierman/ South Africa (2000) Siendentop/Germany(2009)

Wendell Cox And Joshua(2004) public services and density

Cristina C. Danko/ Portugal(2009) Joshua Arbary/New Zealand(2004)

Qi Lei & Prof Lu Bin/ China(2008) Abimbola Tofowomo/Nigeria(2008)

THIRD GENERATION STUDIES

Methodological aspects=Mathematical models, sensitivity

NEO CLASSICAL THEORY

MILLS 1981-Economic theory of sprawl

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COST

WHAT IS URBAN SPRAWL?

20s Urban Sprawl Impacts in Malaysian Cities

Urban sprawl development consists of three

Costs of Urban Sprawl

TIMUR LAUT 0.56 0.09 0.56

BARAT DAYA 2.28 4.31 2.89

REGIONS Urbanization Population Population Net Change in

Timur 100% 0.56 12.81 -702 0.08

Barat 70.59 2.88 3.88 304 3.35

SPS 65.68 3.64 1.99 3220 5.01

SPT 79.64 2.43 5.00 2133 3.51

SPU 56.95 0.91 3.71 -4946 2.10

Population trend 1970-

URBAN SPRAWL EVIDENCE IN NORTHERN

SEBERANG PERAT TENGAH

S-ar putea să vă placă și