 Missing the forest through the trees? Comment on Reid Ewing and Fang Rong's “the impact of urban form on U.S. residential energy use”Samuel R. Staley Housing Policy Debate, 2008, vol. 19, issue 1, 31-43 Abstract: This article critically evaluates Ewing and Rong's analysis, which suggests that low‐density, single‐family housing is more energy intensive than higher‐density development and thus justifies more stringent antisprawl growth controls. While the empirical analysis is fundamentally sound, the data and methods that were used do not justify the conclusions. Four primary weaknesses in the analysis are the focus of this article: the unfortunate tendency to nest the work in environmental alarmism; the failure to recognize the importance of choice and the trade‐offs implicit in policy recommendations; the failure to consider the ways innovation and technological change influence energy consumption and the choice of policy tools; and the failure to recognize market‐based alternatives, particularly energy pricing reforms, that might more directly influence energy conservation. Low‐density, single‐family housing may in fact be consistent with policies that promote energy conservation and may spur innovations that improve energy efficiency and alternatives. Date: 2008 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:houspd:v:19:y:2008:i:1:p:31-43 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2008.9521625 Access Statistics for this article Housing Policy Debate is currently edited by Tom Sanchez, Susanne Viscarra and Derek Hyra More articles in Housing Policy Debate from Taylor & Francis Journals |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.