Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept

Download 0.91 Mb.

View original pdf

Page	21/27
Date	16.02.2022
Size	0.91 Mb.
	#58253

1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 27

Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground

Ranking of Urban Sprawl Indicators

707
T
able 2.
Urban Sprawl Indicators:
Z Scores
Composite
Density
Concentration
Clustering
Centrality
Nuc learity
Proximity
Index
Rank
New York 1.92 1.14 1.37 1.31 1.77 8.90 Philadelphia 0.38 1.31 0.97 1.06
–0.36 3.56 Chicago 0.23 0.81
–0.28 0.76 0.84 2.97 Boston 1.31
–0.01 0.96 1.01
–0.07 2.15 Los Angeles 1.42 0.80 5
W
ashington,
DC
0.00
–0.39
–0.01 0.60
–0.11
–0.60
–0.50 San Francisco 0.69
–1.17
–1.68 0.61 0.34
–0.63 Houston 0.23 1.64 0.62
–1.92
–0.38
–0.89 Dallas 0.38 0.48
–0.71
–1.51 0.72
–1.94 Denver 0.42 0.18
–1.63
–2.56 Detroit 0.28
–0.28
–2.93 Miami Atlanta 0.41
–0.73
–0.33
–4.83 13
T
able 3.
Ranking of Urban Sprawl Indicators
Density
Concentration
Clustering
Centrality
Nuc learity
Proximity
T
otal
Rank
New York 1
3 1
1 1
8 Philadelphia 4
2 2
2 9
25 Chicago 6
4 9
4 3
30 Boston 2
6 3
3 6
3 Los Angeles 8
13 8
9 2
4 San Francisco 3
12 13 5
5 43 Houston 6
1 4
1 3
1 0
4 5
7
W
ashington,
DC
8 9
6 5
8 1
1 4
7 Dallas 2
4 5
1 0
1 2
4 47 Denver 1
2 8
6 7
13 53 Detroit 1
0 1
0 1
1 6
7 5
3 Miami 1
1 8
12 11 12 57 Atlanta 13 11 7
1 0
8 62 Downloaded by Syracuse University Library at 07:41 30 May 2013

Further evidence that our six operationalizations of the dimensions of sprawl are indeed related to the same core construct yet are quite independent is provided by a correlation analysis.
8
Pearsonian correlations among the six revealed only three that were statistically significantly different from zero proximity and concentration (0.65), centrality and clustering (0.53), and clustering and concentration (0.52). Across all indicators, the correlations averaged 0.29.
9

Download 0.91 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 27