Man vs. Deer: Urban Sprawl

[Richard Brand]

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there is an estimated 1.5 million deer-vehicle collisions every year, resulting in more than 150 deaths and 1.1 billion dollars in damages annually. This is thought to be a direct result from urban sprawl causing the destruction of the deer’s natural habitat. As cities become more densely populated, the borders swell outwards. This growth is increasing at an alarming rate, www.policyalmanac.com claims that, “seventy percent of prime farmland and/or unique forest land is directly in the path of rapid development.” One study in New England showed that the urban spread has increased during the period from 1950 to 1980 at a rate of 180% while population during the same period only increased 50%. While some people view this expansion as one of the greatest threats to local environments, more and more people are escaping the congestion and hectic pace of the inner city to live on the outskirts of major cities.

This outer city lifestyle has drawbacks as well. The outlying regions of metropolitan areas often do not have mass transportation, forcing commuters to drive an increased amount every day. The city areas that are abandoned often decrease in home values inviting even worse situations, or unsold, unoccupied house in neighborhoods. As local areas face degradation, the desire to live further away from “bad neighborhoods” force people to move further out. The increased watershed from developing areas has changed the water flow affecting lakes and reservoirs that cities depend on for water supply. Increased commute time means more emissions in the air. It is uncertain what the cost of this spread is to the local environments. The vast number of people migrating to the “country” is in itself jeopardizing the nature of rural America that makes it so enticing. The website for North Central  Regional Education argues the same crimes happen in rural America that happen in the urban cities, “We are on the same train, but we’re just in the caboose.” The difference is the scale, less people means less crimes. Of course, as the population in these little towns increases, so does the crimes. Often at a rate faster than the local infrastructure of law enforcement can compete with.

As a person who lives in rural Texas, I agree with most people that are fleeing the cramped space of the cities; it is worth it. This sprawl is just the next step in the evolution of communities. After the urban migration of the early 1900’s and families left farms to work in factories, they were forced to live in local, small neighborhoods that were within walking distance to where they worked. The invention of the streetcars and transportation allowed people to move out of the polluted, infested boroughs and spread out a little. The advent of the car and troops returning home allowed for the suburban boom of 1950’s. Of course, as public transportation became prominent in most cities, the poorer, and more often than not minority, families had a key to suburban America. By the late 1980’s the suburbs were filling up. Urban sprawl began. The next step was to move out of suburban America and into rural America.

As a citizen, and potential homebuyer, what are your thoughts about urban sprawl? Is it ethical? Is it inevitable? Do we have an obligation to the major cities we live/work/attend school in?  At what point is the increase in quality of life, no longer worth the impact to the local environment?

 

[0a8yxr36a7lh0]

I believe that urban sprawl in inevitable. Cutting down trees and changing the environment is a natural consequence for development. I know that there are ways for developers to preserve some of the environment when they are making plans, however wild animals will never be able to survive in the middle of the city no matter how much of the natural environment is preserved.

 

I must admit that I hate seeing trees being cut down or animals displaced so that a shopping center can be built. But, at the same time, urban development and the building of homes often increases the quality of life for those who chose to live in that area. Building homes, for example, creates jobs for many different types of workers, and it stimulates the economy. I believe that people are always more important and while we should not be foolish, the land is meant to benefit us, not the other way around. If a tree must be cut down, and a deer displaced so that a family has a place to live or a business man can further his business, I am all for it.

[06wl92n4qutjm]

I dont think at this present moment that it is inevitable. As people acquire the ability to buy a home they will want the highest standard of living they can get. This will push developers to build more in the cheapest area which would be undeveloped land outside the busyness of the city. This is hazardous to habitats because we are destroying their land. If this goes unchecked entire habitats can be destroyed and species eliminated from the face of the earth. Senseless planning without looking at the bigger picture of the entire landscape.

Although it may not be the most cost affective way, redevelopment of run down areas will be necessary in order to provide housing for all economic groups without moving further into animal habitats. This will keep many people in the "busyness" of the city, but if the overall plan of entire cities is done right by combining green areas like parks around with well placed systems and buildings can create a balance where people feel out of the city in the city. cheap, clean, mass transportation would also be needed with a longer range system connecting cities. It clearly will not be easy but it is a nice idea. Until then more we will continue to have a negative affect on the worlds environments and not be good stewards of what we are given. I am not saying that spreading into urban areas is bad or that every tree must be saved. I am simply advocating that their must be a smarter plan that can be developed that can meet the needs of people and have a minimal footprint on the terrain. 

[1sjuqoqaic4zs]

First off, Jordan I think you did a great job on your article. It was very interesting and informative. I feel that while it is true that this urban sprawl is inevitable, city planners and developers must plan for the shift in the environment that surrounds the dense areas. As growth happens these urban areas do spread out and make room for more people but also for more opportunities.

There are great benefits to this growth. One is the idea of the best of both worlds. Those who move out of the intensity that is a city are often able to experience a taste of the country while still having a close enough commute that they can benefit from some of the quality opportunities that the city provides. As you mentioned the less people that live in an area the less crime that occurs. These sprawls really do create great opportunity for those who are looking for room to stretch and grow. I think one of the greatest issues during a sprawl like this is protecting the evironment and the animals that calla that land their home. As Christians we have a responsibility to look after God's creation. We have to approach this God-given responsibility with wisdom, because we were also given dominion over the beast of the earth. We do not need to be so afraid of killing dear that we are unable to use them for food or thin them out as they over populate. But we need to tak into consideration the world around  us as cities grow. We must consider how growth will affect the rivers and lakes. By damaging the creation around us we ultimately put our societies in danger. Cities will grow and it is inevitable that this growth will happen on top of a natural habitats. This is not a crime, however it needs to be done with care. If a careless attitude is being practiced it can damage our world.

I do think that those citizens living in a city have the responsibility to help support beneficial development concepts and ideas. We need to be apart of the growth plans. We need to be involved in municipal decisions that are being made. We cannot write off decisions because we are not sure that these choices will directly affect us. We need to play an active role in making sure growth happens with ethical support.

I do not believe that there is ever a time when the increase in quality of life is no longer worth the impact on the local environment. As a city grows it becomes increasingly obvious that the community must begin to spread out. But We must always consider how it will affect the environment around that city. it is never ok to treat it as nothing more than a piece of property. It is our civil obligation to take care of our world and to consider how our growth will impact the environment.