sustainability

Review Sustaining What Is Unsustainable: A Review of Urban Sprawl and Urban Socio-Environmental Policies in North America and Western Europe

Carlos Bueno-Suárez 1,* and Daniel Coq-Huelva 1,2

1 Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Sevilla, Avda. Ramón y Cajal 1, 41018 Sevilla, Spain; [email protected] 2 Instituto de Estudios sobre América Latina, Universidad de Sevilla Avenida de la Ciudad Jardín 20-22, 41005 Sevilla, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected]



Received: 14 May 2020; Accepted: 24 May 2020; Published: 30 May 2020


Abstract: Urban sprawl and its economic, social, and environmental consequences are central issues for approaching more sustainable forms of life and production. This review provides a broad theoretical exploration of the main features of urban sprawl but also of sustainable urban policies in Western Europe and North America. Urban sprawl can be observed in both continents, as the search for higher standards of economic, social, and environmental sustainability is also an essential feature of urban governance in the last years. Urban sprawl has been slightly weaker in Western Europe, as its are cities generally more compact. Moreover, in Western Europe, urban sprawl has sometimes been confronted with ex-ante preventive policies. However, in North America, urban sprawl from the 1950s has been an essential element of the social ordering and, thus, of the American way of life. In both cases, urban sprawl has generated successive rounds of accumulation of built capital, which is currently managed in sustainable ways essentially through ex-post and palliative measures, that is, trying to “sustain what is unsustainable”. In other words, the idea is to make urban sprawl more sustainable but without altering its main morphological elements.

Keywords: urban sprawl; urban governance; environmental governance; sustainable urban policies; sustainable transition; bio-social construction; brownfields; greenbelts; greenareas; sustainable mobility

1. Introduction The world population is nowadays over 7.7 billion. The United Nations projections maintain a growing trend with global population close to 10 billion by 2050 [1]. Additionally, the greatest concentration of population around cities since the middle of the 20th century can be observed. This concentration occurs essentially in large cities, which, in the era of globalization, become centers of productive and financial control [2]. Thus, more than 4200 million people currently live in cities and following the estimations of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, 68% of the world population will live in cities in the year 2050 [3]. Such concentration of population and economic activities in cities has been explained on the basis of the concept of External Economies, which, in the urban sphere, takes two forms: Localization Economies and Urbanization Economies [4]. The Localization Economies insist on the reduction of production costs associated with the concentration of productive, commercial, and financial activities. Thus, it is associated with a decrease in corporative costs and an increase in the quality of labor, intermediate goods, and knowledge [5,6]. The economies of urbanization insist on the benefits offered

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445; doi:10.3390/su12114445 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 2 of 36 by the proximity of the final markets, which allows increasing the contact with clients and final consumers. In consequence, they consider the size and social diversity of urban centers as essential aspects for understanding the dynamics of business concentration [7]. The operation of the localization and urbanization economies has been essential in the form in which the cities have been historically organized, dimensioning their spaces and activities. In the last 70 years, the transformations in urban morphology have accelerated and deepened in parallel with the increase in mobility of capital, information, people, and goods [8,9]. As shown in Figure1, the present review will focus on the presentation of the main features of the phenomena of urban sprawl in the context of Western Europe (WE) and North America (NA), trying to synthesize both its causes and consequences, mainly in terms of sustainability. This, in turn, will allow an approach to urban policies that have been recently applied using sustainability as a reference. The emphasis on explaining the European and North American cases does not mean that the relevance of urban sprawl in many other territorial contexts, such as Latin America [10], Asia [11,12] or Africa [13] is not recognized. However, in this article, it is understood that there is a set of common causes and effects that justify a specific revision in the European and North American cases. Without going into the content of the discussion that follows, it can be anticipated that in both WE and NA the urban sprawl has as its origin an excess of accumulation in the primary circuit (goods and services) that results in an intense transformation of the territory. Expressed in easier terms, urban sprawl originates from an economic, but also from a territorial overflow of wealth. However, in developing countries, in general, and in practically the totality of areas such as Africa and Latin America, the origins of urban sprawl are very different. Thus, these processes are not derived as much from an overflow of wealth (although this element is also present), but rather from the opposite process, an overflow of poverty that materializes in massive processes of rural–urban migration, land takeovers, and the more or less unlawful building of large sections of popular neighborhoods. In other cases, such as those observable in Asia, there are mixed processes, accompanied by strong state intervention [11,12].

Figure 1. Global structure of the article.

Before properly entering in this review, it is necessary to insist that there is no homogeneous and shared definition of urban sprawl phenomena. Nevertheless, a set of specific elements is frequently listed [14,15]. In any case, the academic literature frequently approaches the urban sprawl from a morphological characterization that emphasizes low density, low proximity, and low centrality. Low density is understood as a space generated essentially from single-family dwellings that have a Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 3 of 36 relatively low population in relation to the space they occupy, producing a territorial model featured by a high consumption of land per inhabitant [16,17]. This is related with high dispersion, understood as a strong distribution of the population across relatively large areas. Low centrality and proximity are understood as a spatial distance between suburbs and central areas [14,18]. However, as will be seen in the following sections, what low density and low centrality exactly meant differs significantly in WE and NA. Urban sprawl is a central element in the present socio-economic and territorial organization. In this sense, a large number of studies and academic reviews have been conducted to expose its main features and consequences. Some of these reviews are referred to NA [19], to WE [20,21], and even to both cases [9,22]. In this context, this review presents two main new features. Firstly, it was carried out using interpretative frameworks based on a Political Economy approach, which made possible to connect urban sprawl with a wide range of theoretical concepts. Among them, elements such as Secondary Circuit of Accumulation, State’s Rescaling, Public Private Partnership, Financialization, Foreclosures, Rur-urbanization, Greenbelts, Brownfields, Traffic Oriented Policies, Green Areas Provision, Environmental Justice, or Green Gentrification have had a special relevance in the analysis. This has allowed obtaining not only a wider vision of urban sprawl dynamics but also to deepen some of the elements on which its future evolution depends. Secondly, this article focuses on the different ways in which the sustainability discourse is shaping urban sprawl. Namely, although it is recognized (and it is demonstrated) that the sustainability discourse is not preventing the advance and much less reverting urban sprawl, the different forms in which “sustainable” public policies are modifying and interacting with urban transformation patterns are analyzed. In addition, this is done by considering a wide range of policies and planning programs. This review is organized as follows. First the methodology is presented. In the following section, the main economic, social, and institutional elements that explain urban sprawl processes in both NA and WE are presented. In the fourth point, some economic, social, and environmental consequences of these processes are analyzed. In the fifth point, some of the various urban policies that have tried to limit or correct some of the most negative impacts of urban sprawl in terms of sustainability are introduced. Finally, in point six, some conclusions are obtained.

2. Methodology The present text analyzes the evolution of the phenomenon of urban sprawl as well as its causes and consequences from a structural and holistic perspective, based on an extensive review of the academic literature. It also reviews some of the initiatives that have been used in the recent past to confront these phenomena, both from ex-ante (preventive strategies) and ex-post (palliative strategies) approaches. The review performed is undertaken from a previously defined structure based on the next phases that we can see in Figure2. The first phase consists of framing a set of interrelated questions related with the topic analyzed. Particularly, three different questions are stated. What are the main reasons which explain urban sprawl? What are the main consequences of urban sprawl in terms of economic, social, and environmental sustainability? What are the main policies addressed to make urban sprawl more sustainable? The second phase consists of identification and selection of the most relevant works according to the above questions. For this purpose, academic databases and scientific literature search engines (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar) were used. The article covers a broad historical period, from 1950 to the present. However, the reviewed academic literature focuses on the period 2000–2020, with some previous references, essentially to seminal contributions on the analyzed topics. Many of the articles reviewed conducted long-term analyses, thus making it possible to obtain sufficient references to the phenomena reviewed. Therefore, a large and relevant number of bibliographic references were obtained, which were selected using both quantitative (number of citations) and qualitative (reference authors, breadth of treatment of the topic, etc.) criteria. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 4 of 36

The third phase consisted of first processing of the information and analysis of contents. In this phase, the second round of elimination of duplicated or little contributing materials was also performed. This first work of interpretation allowed, in turn, the identification of key issues to explore further, which were the following: Secondary Circuit of Accumulation, State’s Rescaling, Public Private Partnership, Financialization, Foreclosures, Rur-urbanization, Greenbelts, Brownfields, Traffic Oriented Policies, Green Areas Provision, Environmental Justice and Green Gentrification.

Figure 2. Methodology and phases of the review.

Focusing on those topics and particularly on their relationship with urban sprawl and sustainability, the second round of literature search and selection was completed in the fourth phase. The same databases mentioned above were used. The selection was made again according to the number of citations and also according to the proximity of the text to the analysis of suburbanization phenomena. With all the information obtained, the fifth phase was conducted in order to organize, group and analyze the final contents. On the basis of all this previous work, we proceeded to the final drafting of the text. In some cases, it was found that some statements needed to be argued on the basis of more accurate empirical evidence. Thus, a final examination of the original sources was made to find empirical evidence that confirmed or nuanced some assertions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 5 of 36

Therefore, a relatively systematic method of review has been followed, which, however, includes, by explicit decision of the authors, a qualitative element in the selection of the contributions and the choice of a group of topics to be studied in depth [23]. In this sense, an attempt has been made to combine the essential ontological principles of a systematic review with a constructivist approach in which the content of the review depends on the main concepts obtained from empirical materials [24].

3. Historical Overview of the Prevalent Forms of Urban Expansion and Diffusion in the United States and Europe The phenomena of urban sprawl have different economic, social, environmental, and institutional elements that interact with each other [20,25,26]. In order to address the ways of this interaction, a small historical overview of the conformation of the phenomena of urban sprawl in WE and NA will be carried out. As it will be analyzed, urban sprawl takes different forms in two successive moments, Keynesian-Fordist and Neoliberal-Globalized [27–31]. In both periods, there is an element of public intervention and another of molecular market operation, with the balance between them unstable and changing over time [32].

3.1. Urban Sprawl and the Keynesian-Fordist Model of Urbanization in the United States and Western Europe (1945–1975) In the early 1950s, the phenomena of urban sprawl were already clearly perceptible in the United States (US). Research by Nechyba, and Walsh (2004) shows that, in 1950, of the total population living in US cities, 65% resided in the centers and 35% in suburban areas [22]. The transformations in the dominant urban model in the US can be put in relation to five interrelated elements:

(a) The formation of the middle classes and the gradual consolidation of the model of mass consumption (b) The generalization of the automobile and the explosion of motorized mobility (c) The expansion of infrastructure associated with public investment programs (d) The abundance of natural resources at low prices: Oil and territory (e) The economic functionality of urban sprawl in the dominant accumulation model

At this stage, we were witnessing the formation of a middle class characterized by levels of training, income, and job security that were much higher than those observed among working classes. These middle classes, on the one hand, could devote a large part of their income to consumer goods and services that go beyond basic needs. However, in addition, a part of these incomes were allocated to the improvement of their living conditions, with the acquisition of housing being a central element in this model. This socially prevalent behavior caused major changes in urban models and implied a strong growth of real estate markets. Those processes were additionally supported in the US by the Federal Government’s policy of encouraging demand through, for example, the financial promotion of the construction of affordable housing for the veterans of the Second World War [33–35]. Moreover, the increase in income levels was associated with a growing desire for social differentiation [36]. Thus, there was a demand for housing in areas far from the old central districts, characterized by being perceived as more natural, less urbanized and, therefore, with easier access to not yet exploited parts of natural capital [37,38]. This generated a cultural pattern (the American way of life) in which the diffuse city was considered, at least in the minds of many of its new inhabitants, close to the ideal of city-garden [39,40]. This reinvention of the urban also absorbed important economic resources. Thus, the cities were not only instituted as places oriented to production but also as wide, extensive and diverse markets in which the capacity to consume new public and private services and new forms of leisure, is generalized [41,42] The automobile, the development of its industry, and the extension of its market, was the second motor of the urban sprawl. It was also closely associated with the growth of the middle classes. Hence, middle class families were first able to have one vehicle, and then moved towards the model of one vehicle for each adult family member. This development of the automotive industry has been related Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 6 of 36 to the generation of mobility needs being urban sprawl and the use of the private vehicles mutually reinforcing processes [43,44]. The provision and improvement of road networks, through the policy of public investment in new roads, was the third element that explains the relevance of urban sprawl processes [45]. It should also be noted that the intensity of the urban sprawl phenomena was also related to the abundance of two natural resources, which in this period were offered not only massively but also at relatively low prices. First, the availability of cheap oil was an essential element in the intensive car use [45]. In this sense, it should be noted that the price of gasoline was particularly low throughout this period in the US. Even in 1978, after the strong oil shock, the average price of a liter of gasoline in the US was $0.18 [46]. This meant that the physical costs of a model of motorized mobility were not translated into household economies [47]. Second, the urban sprawl model was a strong consumer of territory, which, at this stage, was incorporated into the market at relatively low prices. Finally, it should be stressed that the urban sprawl model was fully functional to the dominant accumulation logics. Already at the beginning of the 1960s, a situation of excess of capital that could not be absorbed by the ordinary production of goods and services was observed. In this context, the explosion of urbanization and the affirmation of the suburban model was able to absorb a high share of the existing capital surpluses. Thus, the phenomenon that Harvey (1990) called “the urbanization of capital” was generated, which was essential in continuing the expansive economic dynamics that marked the North American and European economies until the mid-1970s [28]. Therefore, urban sprawl was, from the beginning, based on an intensive consumption of natural resources (energy, materials, space) associated with strong problems of unsustainability. However, at that time, many of those problems were not perceived as such. Certain consumption patterns, as car use, were not yet a generalizable element at the global level. The issue of space was not yet associated with objective limitations in its provision either. On the contrary, the model of urban sprawl allowed not only a greater quality of life, but the perception of a greater proximity to nature [39,40]. WE followed the suburban patterns dominant in the US, but with a number of distinctive features. Although there was a growth in suburban areas, this was slower because the same causes that promoted urban sprawl in the US also existed in WE, but to a lesser extent. For instance, there was also strong development of the middle classes, but their income levels were significantly lower, especially in the immediate post-World War II period. This, in turn, influenced the rates of motorization. Private car did not spread in Europe the way it did in the US [19,48]. Thus, in the middle of the 20th century, the number of cars per thousand inhabitants in WE only reached 66% of that of the US [48]. The price of oil was also higher and, in most European countries, it was subject to high levels of taxation, becoming a very relevant source of tax revenue. Considering again 1978 as a reference, the average price of gasoline in Germany was 0.46 dollars, more than 2.5 times the price in the US. Likewise, WE does not have the same abundance of territory. This favored vertical construction dynamics. Thus, houses were offered to incipient middle classes at more affordable prices. Additionally, European cities promoted to a greater extent forms of public transport which, in many cases, already had a significant level of development before the Second World War: Train, tram, underground, bus, etc. These facilitated intra-urban displacements without being always necessary the use of the automobile [22]. Accordingly, the existing tradition of more compact cities was not excessively weakened. Notwithstanding, there are important differences by country, with metropolitan areas generally more dispersed in the North Atlantic and more concentrated in Central Europe and the Mediterranean areas [20,49,50].

3.2. The Process of Urban Restructuring and its Effect on Spatial Morphology: The Restructuring of the Diffuse City (1975–1985) In the mid-1970s, with the end of the growth process that had been a feature of the European and North American economies since the end of World War II, urban realities were strongly impacted, albeit to different degrees, by the phenomena of urban sprawl. However, urban sprawl did not act in the emptiness but superimposed to previous rounds of capital accumulation featured by other Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 7 of 36 morphologies and forms of city [51]. Thus, the majority of the urban agglomerations in WE and NA have, at this moment, a mixed character. In general terms, there was a division between a more or less compact inner city, and an increasingly extended suburban periphery. In a context of economic crisis and restructuring of social and production relations, this differentiation became increasingly important. In this sense, the majority of the economic and social problems were located in the inner city, gradually inhabited by social groups with lower levels of income. Thus, in the case of US, more than 17% of the population in those areas was below the poverty line. This ratio was reduced to 7% in the suburbs [22]. Accordingly, the urban centers became the “heart of the crisis” with an appearing increasingly widespread urban discontent [52]. All this happens in a context where there is a strong destruction of capital [53]. Not only does this affect the industries themselves, but it also has a strong effect on land markets, causing dynamics of declining prices in important parts of the urban tissue. In addition, the industrial crisis goes together with the disappearance of traditional jobs and with the fall of the working classes’ living conditions. As a result, many of the neighborhoods located in the central city entered into accelerated processes of degradation [20,54,55]. This was exacerbated by the public policies implemented, which eliminated much of the existing subsidies and protection networks, thus aggravating the recessive trends in many of those areas [56]. As a result, there was a sharp increase in insecurity and crime in many of the main cities, with New York perhaps being the most prominent example. This, in turn, affected bank guarantees and generated tensions that undermined the stability of the system as a whole [57]. However, the new, mostly middle-class suburbs largely eluded many of these problems. They had neither industrial activities to restructure nor populations based on sectors particularly affected by the crisis. Moreover, suburbs increasingly located a whole new set of tertiary activities [58]. Urban sprawl was reinforced by a new round of migration of middle-class families [59]. These migrants seek safer social environments, but also a better provision of public services (education in particular). In this sense, the flight from the central city reflects, to a great extent, the “every man for himself” concept, that is, the individual capacity to avoid the costs of the crisis [59,60]. Suburbs became particularly attractive for real estate investment because they were not only protected from the dynamics of property depreciation but also increasingly demanded. This is particularly relevant in a context in which the first elements of financialization were appearing, making credit access essential for financing certain consumer goods [61–63]. However, credit provision required, among other factors, guarantees, becoming real estate in the suburbs a central piece to this machinery [64]. Moreover, real estate became a fundamental element in the form taken by processes of capital accumulation in which differences in wealth stock were not only wider but also had growing socio-economic relevance [65]. The city, in this context, was under great financial pressure. There was a context featured by the first elements of the neoliberal model that tends to restrict the financing of social programs and other existing protection institutions, in the phase that some authors have called “rolling-back” [29]. In the face of the lack of funds, a series of transformations took place in the system of urban governance, with the aim of increasing the possibilities of regeneration based on the active involvement of private capital. In this way, there was a transition from a managerialist approach (centered on the planning and management of sufficient and relatively ordered public funds) to an entrepreneurialist approach (centered on the possibility of attracting and committing private capital to urban transformation projects) [27]. Entrepreneurialism implies that local authorities are responsible for raising funds and generating a “business-friendly” environment. It, therefore, involves the existence of individual projects of cities competing for investment, that is, the institutionalization of a model of competition among territories [66].

3.3. Urban Sprawl and the Neoliberal-Globalized Urban Model The widespread practice of entrepreneurialist approaches has been one of the basic elements in the affirmation of a neo-liberal urban model. From the mid-1980s, there is a new stage, which Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 8 of 36 some authors call “rolling out”, in which a set of devices that allow a sustained accumulation of real estate capital are instituted [29]. Among these institutional devices, three independent, but closely related, aspects should be highlighted: The State’s rescaling, the generalization of the Public-Private Partnership (PPP), and financialization [67]. Since the 1970s, there has been a strong reconfiguration of State activity both in WE and NA [68]. This led to a transformation not only in the forms of management but also in the competencies attributed to different State levels, as well as in the way these levels interact with private capital. In this way, the transfer of relevant powers can be observed at the supranational level (see the case of the European Union), while regional and local governments gain in “autonomy” not only in management but also in the attraction of resources. This largely affects the urban terrain, which becomes the subject of different interventions at different scales [69,70]. The result is a growing diversity of government agencies responsible for urban management. Thus, some emergent scales are added as Metropolitan Areas, Association of Municipalities, Public-Private Partnerships, etc. In this sense, the State apparatus diversified into a complex set of organizations with competences that often overlap each other, in what some authors have called “Statehood” [68]. This profusion of institutions that regulate and promote urban growth has led to a model that favors urbanization. For example, in Spain in the period 1996–2007, very permissive regulations facilitated sprawled models of urbanization [67,71,72]. The State’s rescaling goes in tandem with the generalization of PPP. The justification is that Statehood’s expansion does not involve a cost to the taxpayer because these new institutions are self-financing from the investment they help to mobilize [68]. As the territory is scarce in many areas, this model ensures that private capital has an influence on urban regulation and planning, which is essential to guarantee their business profitability [73]. PPP has been progressively extended to different areas and, for example, is now increasingly important in concessions for the construction and operation of infrastructures as motorways, railways, metro systems, etc. as it will be analyzed in the epigraph 4.2.1 [74]. The mobilization of private resources for real estate also has a strong financial component. In part, developers and construction companies can mobilize their own accounting resources. However, most of the funds they mobilize originate from indebtedness to banking institutions or to direct access to capital markets. Thus, financial operations became increasingly relevant. This centrality of financial issues in broader dynamics of capital accumulation led to the affirmation of a financialized model of capital accumulation [75]. Such a model relies on the existence of a chronic excess of liquidity that seeks profitable investment opportunities worldwide in order to avoid depreciation. Those excesses of liquidity have different origins. It derives in some cases from the concentration of income derived from the exploitation of certain commodities, such as oil [76]. Moreover, it has its origin in the processes of financial deregulation, which have multiplied the forms of private money creation [64,77,78]. Finally, it is also explained, especially since the 2007 crisis, by the intense creation of monetary base both by the European Central Bank and the U.S. Federal Reserve [79–81]. Financialization is not only characterized by a chronic excess of liquidity, but also by the fact that the financial flows are particularly unstable. Thus, there are situations of high liquidity and easy realization of profit and other phases of lack of financing because of sudden credit crunches [82,83]. These situations are recurrent, generating a plethora of bubbles and financial crises. However, far from weakening the system, the succession of financial crises allows sudden (and sometimes temporarily short) fall in prices of real estate assets, which can multiply the levels of profitability of financial agents [84]. This model has been described as a “casino economy” because of this instability in asset prices and this erratic behavior of liquidity [85]. Additionally, financialization has a major impact on mortgage markets [64]. State’s rescaling, PPP and financialization have resulted in the creation of new coalitions of pro-urban sprawl agents. In the case of the inner city, the new model of neoliberal urbanism implies a valorization of some previously degraded areas. This has different aspects, generating a wide range of phenomena: Development of financial and cultural districts, gentrification, touristification, etc. [86,87]. However, Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 9 of 36 this does not mean that suburban forces have been weakened. On the contrary, it can be observed that urban sprawl is consolidating. In this way, some metropolitan areas grow to occupy a whole regional space. This is the case of some European cities, such as London, which covers a considerable part of the British south-east, or the Paris region. Both are now genuine urban regions [88,89]. In addition, PPP and the availability of financial resources have often favored the complexization of many residential areas which have been included commercial and leisure facilities, particularly in the form of shopping centers or malls. There has also been a tendency to locate productive installations such as technology parks [58]. Furthermore, the urban sprawl extends to areas where its presence was still reduced. This would be the case of the Mediterranean city which, especially from the second half of the 1980s, is going to be strongly impacted by the phenomena of urban sprawl [50,90]. In this sense, Arellano and Roca’s research shows that it is “the western European periphery is where the greatest processes of urban sprawl have taken place” [91]. This coincided with strong investment in road networks from the 1980s onwards related with the application of the European Union’ s structural funds [92]. Moreover, urban sprawl phenomena are increasingly influenced by the extension of second residencies. In relatively warm environments, this means an increasing occupation of the coastline. Here, the popularization of sun and beach tourism converges with the massive construction of apartments and single-family dwellings [93]. Frequently, owners are not only nationals but also residents of other countries. In this sense, practically all European countries with a Mediterranean fringe (France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, or Greece) have seen their coastlines strongly affected by the proliferation of summer-use dwellings. Finally, an important process of housing construction in rural areas is observed, especially but not exclusively, in areas with a colder climate. These processes are especially evident in the areas with a high landscape and heritage value, which can be associated with the idea of “rural idyll” [94]. As a result, the so-called rur-urbanization processes are spreading, which can be understood as the outcome of the extension of sprawl dynamics beyond conventionally associated borders of metropolitan areas. Rural idyll and rur-urbanization are strongly observed in both NA and WE. In the US, it affects areas of high scenic beauty, located in relatively sparsely populated areas, such as the Northwest, sometimes accompanied by high levels of social segregation [95–97]. Similar phenomena are observed in WE, also with strong class dynamics in countries such as the UK, France, or Spain [98–100]. In addition, particularly in the European case, many of these rur-urbanized areas have strong relationships with specific metropolitan areas. This is, for example, the case of Empordanet and Barcelona [101].

4. Main Socio-Economic Effects of Urban Sprawl The urban sprawl groups a complex set of processes with multiple effects that can be approached in terms of sustainability [20]. However, the concept of sustainability is polysemic, therefore, it is necessary to clarify its content. Thus, different dimensions are recognized, considering economic (Figure3), social (Figure4), and environmental aspects (Figure5)[102]. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 10 of 36

Figure 3. Main economic costs of urban sprawl.

Figure 4. Main social costs of urban sprawl.

Figure 5. Main environmental costs of urban sprawl. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 11 of 36

4.1. Economic Effects As it has been pointed out, the Agglomeration Economies are one of the theoretical foundations of urban phenomena. Thus, when densities strongly diminish, some of the key economic forces which explain the existence of cities are weakened [103]. However, the operation of Agglomeration Economies is strongly influenced by the unequal distribution of income and the reduced monetary cost of some modes of transport. Thus, in the case of the US, the fact that suburban communities are characterized by substantially higher levels of income means that, in general, there are no problems associated with the provision of goods and services. In fact, the areas with greater deficiencies in the provision of, for instance, healthy and nutritious food, the so-called “Food deserts” (FD), are mostly concentrated in depressed areas usually located in the inner city [104]. FD is a concept with a strong metaphorical component that has been defined in many different ways [105]. Thus, references have been made to elements, such as the number of stores [106], the characteristics of the food demand [107], or the proximity,diversity and variety of supermarkets [108]. The existence of FD has been verified in countries such as US [109], Canada [108] or UK [110]. FD must be understood as the result of evolutionary processes closely associated with the phenomena of urban sprawl [111]. In this sense, the growing migration of middle-class families to the suburbs tends to reduce the average income of inner-city inhabitants and, thus, the potential market for businesses. As a result, there is in the long term a reduction in the inner-city food supply and a parallel increase in the suburbs. Moreover, new suburban supermarkets have a wider and better-quality offer, generally at lower prices [110]. In this sense, the extension of the suburban stain has in the US a significant correlation with the appearance of FD areas [111]. However, in the cases in which low-income social groups inhabit suburban spaces, the problem of access to certain goods can be accentuated [112]. There is also a range of costs that have a dual economic and ecological status. The ecological dimension, derived from their impacts on the general operation of ecosystems, will be analyzed in more detail in Section 3.3. However, as those costs are often non-internalized in monetary terms, it is also possible to speak of non-recognized economic costs or, in other words, of negative external economies (or externalities). One of these negative externalities is associated with travel costs. This has a strictly economic dimension, partly correctly internalized and partly not. Expenditure on fuel consumption, the need for the systematic renewal of cars, or the cost of their maintenance is internalized. In fact, these elements account for a significant share of household budgets. However, an important part of the ecological costs derived from greater pollution and the depletion of resources is not internalized, generating important external diseconomies. Moreover, the economic translation of many social costs is not considered either [113], for example, the time drivers have to spend traveling to their workplaces. On average, every American lost a week of their time in 2017 as a result of congestion in metropolitan areas, which involved extra spending of 21 gallons of gasoline per vehicle [114]. In 1982, with less energy-efficient vehicles, this extra expense was only five gallons. In aggregate terms, the extra expense in 2017 accounted for 3.3 billion gallons [114]. In monetary terms, congestion costs amounted to $19.5 billion. This is 19% higher than the costs estimated five years earlier in 2012 and almost 48% higher than in the last decade. Each US driver had to pay, on average, $1080 per year in costs due to congestion. Congestion times also tend to increase with the size of the metropolitan areas and, therefore, the distance between residential, work, and leisure spaces [71,115]. Another economic effect is the conversion of non-urban to urban land. Here again, there is an interplay between directly accountable economic benefits and hidden negative external economies. The monetary income generated is associated with the monetary revaluation of the land. The change (growth) in the price of land once it is oriented to residential or business use is an important source of monetary income, which generates economic activity and employment in housing and infrastructure construction. However, there are also external dis-economies, as a result of the shift in agricultural production sometimes towards less fertile lands [116]. Therefore, the final consequence of the urban sprawl, will be the loss of rural spaces that could have productive uses to generate food or raw materials [71]. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 12 of 36

Finally, it is necessary to mention the strong association between urban sprawl and financialization. On the one hand, urban sprawl is closely related with strong growth in real estate wealth, due to the combination of two phenomena: The intense construction dynamics and the expansive trend of prices [117]. This housing wealth is largely household ownership, although there is a growing presence of financial funds and corporative investors [79,118]. On the other hand, this goes together with a dramatic growth of household debt that is mainly explained by the increasing cost of housing [79,119]. “From 1999 to 2007, household mortgage debt in the U.S. doubled in real terms to almost $11 trillion (see Figure1), at the time, more than all U.S. government debt (including local and state), and about 30 percent of all domestic nonfinancial sector debt ... ”[120] (p.284) The growth of mortgage debt is not exclusive to the US. The percentage of mortgage debt over GDP was 64.5% in the US at the beginning of the housing crisis, that is, in 2009. However, this indicator reached 111% in the Netherlands, 89.7% in Denmark, 72.5% in the United Kingdom (UK), 52.7% in Ireland and 52.4% in Germany. However, there were some European countries, such as France (26.2%) or Italy (14.5%), where mortgage debt remained at relatively low values [121]. Moreover, the growth in prices is causing many families to be excluded from mortgage credit, despite its increasing ease of access [122]. Attempts by neoliberal institutional structures to include a larger percentage of the population in mortgage credit through the development of subprime segments have clearly failed, producing a chain of effects that led to the credit crunch of 2007 [123]. In addition, the general increase in housing prices has not been reflected in the improvement of housing conditions [124]. The inherent instability of financialization means that there is an additional cost between the strictly economic and social fields. The periodic eruption of financial crisis and credit crunch situations not only affects the value of assets but also causes massive defaults on mortgage payments, foreclosures, and auctions, which ultimately operate as intensive mechanisms of accumulation by dispossession [82,125]. In this sense, foreclosures have been massive in countries like the US, especially affecting lower-income groups and racialized population, with a special impact among Latin Americans and African Americans [126,127]. Foreclosures have also strongly affected various European countries, such as Ireland and Spain [128,129].

4.2. Social Effects Urban sprawl is associated with increased social segregation and the generation of undiversified communities. In this respect, there is a strong relationship between urban sprawl and migratory movements, which try to socially and spatially escape from poverty. Moreover, on occasions, disadvantaged social groups tend to settle in remote, isolated, and poorly communicated spaces [14]. In this context, public planners and decision-makers try, in some cases, to avoid the provision of infrastructure and equipment in suburban areas, which could generate environments in which poverty is concentrated [130]. There is also a relationship between urban sprawl and racial segregation. There is relative evidence that until the late 1970s, urban sprawl in the US was based on strong levels of racial discrimination, underpinned, among other elements, by differentiated access to bank credits for racial minorities [131]. In this sense, the presence of racial minorities, in general, and of African-Americans, in particular, was associated with higher risks of property depreciation. This “technically justified” the systematic denial of credit for homeownership in certain areas [132]. This led to the widespread perception of white suburbs as opposed to racialized urban areas, although suburbs occupied by racialized populations existed from the beginning [133]. In this sense, the abandonment of the central city by those who have the financial capacity to do so turned many of its areas into ghettos. In fact, Glaeser and Kahn conclude that in many areas of the centers there were only those who cannot afford to have a vehicle and cannot buy or rent in the expanding suburban areas [19,134]. Since the 1980s, levels of racial segregation have been decreasing, although it can be considered a structural trait of the NA urban system [135,136]. In this regard, studies conducted with microdata (over 240,000 households and 650,000 individuals drawn from 39,000 census blocks) in the San Francisco Bay Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 13 of 36

Area by Bayer, McMillan, and Rueben demonstrate the influence of racial factors in the choice of place of residence. These factors explain 95% of segregation among Latin Americans, 50% among Asians, and only 30% among White and African-American households [137]. However, there are other events that have increasingly contributed to the persistence of significant levels of urban segregation. One of them is the growing importance socially attributed to food, combined with a proliferation of FD. Thus, FD have been increasingly spatially identified, becoming an increasingly significant socio-political element [138]. Moreover, the processes of urban sprawl are associated with a decrease in social participation. This is essentially due to the distance and lack of communication resulting from dispersion that limits the possibilities of socialization and implies the loss of the notion of neighborhood and mutual trust [103]. Social segmentation is aggravated, especially by limiting the possibilities of interaction of those who do not have a car [47]. However, it also affects those who have a vehicle, because the time of displacement limits their possibilities of socialization. Thus, Putnam established that for every 10 minutes added to driving time on habitual journeys, civic participation decreased by 10% [139]. There are also impacts on people’s own health [140–144]. The most perceptible effects of urban sprawl on health are closely associated with intense car use, especially in terms of the risks of accidents [144]. Using a structural equation model, Ewing et al. studied these factors and found that, more compact urban morphologies showed a lower accident rate because of the shorter distances and the lower speeds [145]. In contrast, suburbs show a higher volume of serious accidents resulting in death. In the USA, 12.4 people per 100,000 inhabitants die annually as a result of traffic accidents [146]. In the EU (28), with more compact cities, and with greater use of public transport, this ratio is 4.9 people per 100,000 people [147]. This ratio is particularly low in countries such as Germany (4.0), Spain (3.9), Denmark (3.0), or the UK (2.8) [147]. Urban sprawl is also associated with a drastic reduction in walking tours because of the spatial distance from places of work, residence, and consumption, as well as the usual lack of pavements. The urban morphology of the urban sprawl, where spaces are fragmented and functionally distanced and where the car culture has not left spaces for pedestrians, means that the private vehicle is practically the only way by which people can move around [148,149]. In the US, for example, the use of the bicycle is very residual (1%), and only 9% of journeys are made on foot. A quarter of all journeys in the US are less than a mile long. However, 75% of them are made by car [144]. Thus, suburbanization is increasingly associated with an increase in sedentariness, which is one of the main causes of overweight and obesity, a prominent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, colon cancer, apnea, or osteoarthritis [142]. Beyond sedentariness, the composition of the diet and, in particular, the increasing reliance on “empty calories” is also behind the majority of these pathologies. In this sense, high levels of morbidity, mortality, and adverse health outcomes are related, among other elements, to diet and, in turn, to the existence of few alternatives to promote healthy nutrition. Consequently, they are associated with the existence of FD [104,111,138].

4.3. Environmental Effects Urban Sprawl

4.3.1. Land Use by Urban Occupation Suburban expansion extraordinarily broadens the dimension of cities [103]. Thus, for example, in the US, the impact in terms of land was more than proportional to the increase in the population. If the population in low-density suburban areas doubled, the extension of land they occupied doubled by four [150]. In Europe, a similar phenomenon occurs even though urban morphologies are more compact and there are some institutional constraints. The expansion of the cities’ size has a set of particularly negative externalities when the land affected has a production model focused on supplying food to local markets. This means that the loss of agricultural land, often under traditional, ecological or integrated farming, limits food sovereignty and exposes these areas to imports [151]. This aspect is particularly relevant in a moment in which, Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 14 of 36 both in WE and in NA, there are strong movements involved in the development and upgrading of short food chains, based on local quality productions [152,153]. Not only are there considerable reductions in the amount of soil available, but also in its quality. Firstly, frequent processes of soil salinization can be observed as a consequence of the sealing by asphalt [154]. In this regard, the coastal areas are frequently the most [155,156]. Secondly, there is sometimes a deterioration of the soil due to erosion processes (piping and gullies) caused by urbanization [157]. Erosion, in the long term, is also associated with desertification processes [158]. Finally, soil deterioration is also related with growing risks of flooding [159], which, in densely populated areas, has not only important environmental but also social costs [156]. At the end of the 2000s, 9% of the European territory had its soil covered with impermeable material [154,160]. It is easy to conclude that the creation of artificial land was a consequence of urbanization, which reduced the natural drainage network, affecting runoff and flooding. However, the damage is greater when flood zones are developed [161]. For example, urban growth in areas at risk of flooding is, on the Spanish southeast coast, greater than anywhere else in Europe. “...the number of properties and the built-up surface area within flood-prone areas have increased to 255.02% and 258.35% (1975 = 100) ... ”[162] (p.311). The research carried out in the US about the Urbanization impacts on surface runoff shows interesting results [159]. Not only urban intensification, but also urban expansion led to a ten-year increase in the surface runoff between 2001 and 2011. The counties with low runoff decreased and with medium and high runoff increased (by 21.8% and 23.3%, respectively). Where there was greater urban expansion, runoff and flood risks grew significantly [159,163]. The impact of urban sprawl in terms of soil loss is especially relevant when areas of high natural and landscape value are affected. Firstly, it is necessary to emphasize that outstanding landscapes revalue those houses that occupy privileged spaces around them. Therefore, in the absence of regulation, certain spaces of high heritage value are quickly occupied: The front of the coastline, locations with beautiful views of the mountains, valleys, etc. [164]. However, the extension of suburbanization sometimes causes a loss, or at least a deterioration of these natural and landscape values, and therefore, losses in the value of the properties [93]. It also has a direct impact on the fauna, which loses habitats in which it used to feed, but also suffers from noise and anthropogenic pollution [165]. In this context, especially in certain European countries, increasingly demanding regulations have been established to preserve cultural and natural heritage [166,167]. However, these regulations do not prevent the progression of suburbanization, despite limiting and shaping it [168]. In this sense, environmentally and scenically privileged spaces are increasingly reserved for the enjoyment of social groups with high levels of economic, cultural, and social capital [169].

4.3.2. The Disruption of Water Cycles Urban expansion, in general, also has a significant impact on water use and management. Urbanized areas do not always have sufficient water resources to meet a growing water demand [170]. However, in WE and NA, access to the resource is guaranteed because of both heavy public investment and the development of different institutional mechanisms [171,172]. There are cases, such as the city of Las Vegas (US), where water demand is covered by the use of non-renewable water resources that are difficult to replace [173]. Water use inside the homes is closely associated with the family size but also with the extent of property (gardens, swimming pools, fountains, and other ornamental uses) [174,175]. In this sense, the demand for water grows substantially with middle-class suburbanization because their homes are frequently accompanied by swimming pools, gardens, or even sometimes integrated into environments characterized by high water consumption, such as golf clubs [176]. This sometimes involves the construction of differentiated drinking and non-drinking (for irrigation and other uses) water supply networks. For instance, in Spain, Alicante was, after Madrid and Barcelona, the place of greatest urban expansion. This urban expansion was associated with the use of second homes (residential tourism), which was mostly oriented towards northern Europe’s residents. In the northern area of the coast, Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 15 of 36 there are single-family dwellings with the largest garden areas, resulting in water consumption being substantially higher than in the southern area, 588 liters/house/day, as compared with 372 liters [160]. The availability of a private swimming pool is closely associated with the garden and both are associated with higher levels of household income and higher value of the dwellings [175,177]. Likewise, there may be an associated factor of a seasonal nature, which precisely shows the need to use a greater amount of water at certain times of the year (for garden irrigation, swimming pools, etc.) [178], or even that said seasonality shows the factor of second residence, in which case, both consumption for internal uses and for external uses increases considerably. However, there is also an educational and cultural element that tends to limit these expansive trends in water consumption. Studies carried out in Hillsboro Oregon (USA), show, in these suburban spaces, that high levels of education are associated with more conscious behavior in a contained use of water, fundamentally in times of drought [178]. In this way, even in the driest places, the models associated with the urban sprawl are present. Hence, in the USA, lawns and swimming pools are shown as decorative elements in architecture and are also very present in arid places. The studies of Harlans 2009, in Phoenix, showed a pattern of water consumption associated with income levels. Thus, those with greater purchasing power had single-family dwellings with high outdoor water consumption, giving rise to an optical impression of oases in the midst of arid spaces [179]. This leads to relatively frequent use of groundwater. In this sense, urban sprawl in these environments also has an effect on aquifers. In some cases, this is aggravated because the strong demand for water in certain metropolitan areas (particularly coastal areas) implies strong detractions of this resource through transfers that could contribute to salinize the aquifers of the coastal border [180,181].

4.3.3. Material Consumption and Environmental Pollution Urban sprawl patterns increase the movement of people, and consequently, the flow of vehicles, increasing both energy consumption and pollutant gas emissions [22,182]. Research by [183] highlights this association between energy consumption and urban morphologies in the US. Thus, per capita fuel sales are significantly higher in extremely low-density states, such as Wyoming or North Dakota. At the other extreme is the District of Columbia, which, with a higher density and an adequate public transport network, shows far lower per capita gasoline consumption [183]. The differences between those living inside and outside metropolitan areas corroborate this correlation between population density and energy consumption. Thus, per capita gasoline sales are 41.2% higher outside metropolitan areas [183]. Similarly, Brownstone and Golob found that a thousand fewer homes per square mile means driving 1200 more miles a year, and therefore, consuming 65 more gallons of gasoline [182]. Vehicle traffic and congestion also have an impact on anthropogenic water pollution. The asphalt road surfaces on which vehicles drive show significant amounts of zinc. Runoff eventually carries the zinc into the aquatic environment. Corrosion of the galvanized metal and abrasion of tires and brakes are the origin of zinc and other metals as iron, manganese, copper, antimony, barium, and zirconium [184,185]. Although technological innovations and the regulations are already alleviating pollution problems in large cities, particularly in terms of CO2, they will have a limited impact on metal erosion and tire abrasion. [19]. Other studies even find polluting metals, such as cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, and nickel, in high-traffic road networks [186]. In the US, 28.5% of greenhouse gases are generated by transport [183]. The movement of vehicles on US roads generates 80% of the total transport’s carbon footprint. The remaining 20% is caused by airplanes, ships, and railways. In fact, the air polluted by nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons is caused, in one-third of cases, by road traffic associated with combustion engines (cars and trucks). In metropolitan areas, the share of road traffic can be as high as 50% [144]. Polluted air affects ecosystems and generates and aggravates respiratory problems, particularly for people suffering from asthma, acute respiratory infections, or other cardiopulmonary diseases, the elderly and children. In the spaces most polluted by high ozone levels, there are more deaths associated with cardio-respiratory diseases, as well as higher absenteeism from work and school [144,187]. The investigations in five Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 16 of 36

German cities on the days of the transport strike show growth in morning peak hours (entry into work) of between 13.3% and 14.8% in emissions of polluting particles. In fact, recently, hospital admissions have increased due to respiratory problems by 13%, mainly in children under five years of age, whose admissions increased by 34% [188]. In the US, the work of Brown, around 100 metropolitan areas shows that higher population density and more compact models show lower emissions of polluting gases [189]. Similarly, studies by Liu et al. on commercial transport vehicle traffic and the emission of its pollutants for the US, conclude that a more compact city model would allow a reduction of at least 3% in the emission of air pollutants and 36% in deaths [190]. Moreover, building models have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Vertical construction, associated with more compact and denser areas, tends to have smaller dwellings with shared walls. The energy consumption of this type of housing is consequently more efficient. Research by Brown et al. shows that buildings with five or more dwellings consume 38 percent of the energy required by single-family homes [191].

5. Sustainable Socio-Environmental Policies: A Synthesis of Selected Experiences in Western Europe and North America As has been indicated, urban sprawl is the result of both the molecular dynamics of capital and the intervention of public authorities [32]. In this sense, a reduced planning capacity often results in an aggravation of socio-environmental problems and in depreciation of real estate capital. In this context, the increasing State’s rescaling in the context of neoliberal governance is particularly problematic [192]. On the one hand, the design and management of socio-environmental policies cannot be subject to fragmented decisions in differentiated spheres of competence with disparate or even conflicting criteria [20,193]. On the other hand, there is growing complexity in the generation of multiple and complex socio-environmental relations that require the participation and coordination of multiple agents in the context of eco-governmentality [194,195]. In this scenario, there are countless initiatives associated with a search for more sustainable patterns of urbanization, in what has been called green urbanism [196,197]. Green urbanism is not only more widespread but more intensively applied in WE [196]. According to [197], green urbanism has three main strands: Energy and Materials, Water and Biodiversity, as well as Urban Planning and Transport. In this review, it is impossible to cover all those elements, so we are going to focus on the last one (Urban Planning and Transport) because it is the most directly related to urban sprawl. Anyway, Urban Planning and Transport include such heterogeneous aspects as the bronwfields, the greenbelts, the areas of residential priority, infrastructures, and equipment for sustainable mobility, etc. [198]. The approaches to sustainable urban planning that address the effects of urban sprawl are based on two main approaches. On the one hand, there are those proposals that try to conduct, content, and limit urban sprawl through ex-ante approaches based on the anticipation, planning, and regulation of land uses. On the other hand, there are those proposals that do not try to limit urban sprawl but to take measures that could palliate and correct its main economic, social, and environmental problems [92]. The aim is, in this last case, to manage the urban sprawl by promoting initiatives that facilitate greater multifunctionality of spaces, that enable alternative forms of mobility and transport or that advocate for greater efficiency in land use [199,200]. Practical applications of both models are observed in both WE and NA. In any case, both views are compatible with the dominant neoliberal urban policies which they not only do not directly question the role of real estate in broader dynamics of capital accumulation, but also prevent its hypothetical depreciation. In this sense, they can be included within the variegated forms of ecological modernization [201–203]. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 17 of 36

5.1. Containment and Driving Policies for the Urban Sprawl

5.1.1. The Conservation of Peri-Urban Environments: Greenbelts and Urban Containment Policies One of the most serious approaches to trying to contain or at least conduct the processes of urban sprawl is the establishment of physical limits to urban growth, prohibiting construction in specific areas protected by different legal devices. This would be the case of the so-called greenbelts [204]. The idea is, therefore, to create a protected area around the urban centers that serve as a border with the surrounding rural environment, contributing to the maintenance of the agricultural, landscape and natural wealth of the surrounding ecosystems. There are many different approaches to greenbelts that can encompass different kinds of interventions, such as green corridors, green roads, green strips, or peri-urban parks [205,206]. Although there are some examples of their application in the 19th century, their use became popular in the 1950s, especially in Europe [198]. They were especially expanded in Great Britain with fourteen cities where they have reached a significant dimension [206]. It has also been applied in many other places with Anglo-Saxon influence, such as Wellington, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, and Hong Kong. Similarly, there are relevant examples of greenbelts in continental European cities such as Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Berlin, Vienna, Stockholm, Helsinki, or Copenhagen. In the case of North America, there is a clear influence in several Canadian cities, such as Ottawa, Toronto, or Vancouver. However, it is difficult to find examples of greenbelts in the US, although there are some outstanding greenbelt cases in cities such as Portland or Boston [198]. Initially, the greenbelts were understood in a very rigid way, even limiting the maximum dimensions and densities of the different areas around them [206,207]. Their rationality, particularly of the initially considered immovable urban limits, was also questioned [206]. However, the greenbelt concept has eventually evolved, framing a multiplicity of changes. Firstly, the greenbelts, by territorially restricting the sphere of the urban contributed to generating a series of limits of meaning and to modeling social preferences. In fact, in some cases they could propitiate an increase in the price of housing in the centers [208]. On the other hand, the greenbelts by themselves could not avoid migrations of urban population to the periphery and, thus, the territorial expansion of the suburban stain [209]. In this way, the phenomenon known as “jump” is produced [204]. This would be the case of Great London [210]. In the British experience in general, greenbelts by itself were not able to restrict growth in suburban spaces, although they were able to create an accessible and extensive network of green areas around the central city. Suburbanized spaces beyond the greenbelt became almost exclusively for residential use. Greenbelts were thus trapped between two spaces of strong urbanization pressure with different characteristics, the central subject to a high real estate revaluation and the expanding suburban spaces [211]. In the case of Germany, however, greenbelts seem to have been more successful in containing the urban stain. In fact, practically 60% of its regions have applied measures of greenbelts accompanied by others addressed to maintain a compact urban morphology and to avoid the disorderly processes of urban expansion [204]. To this effect, fractal analyses show that, considering 20 European cities, the German city of Frankfurt has the highest concentration of its periphery, followed closely by Stuttgart [212]. Frankfurt’s greenbelt, approved in 1991, was designed to restrain urban sprawl, while protecting natural areas around the city. This was coupled with the specific declaration of numerous cultural, historical and environmental sites [198]. There are other outstanding examples of greenbelts. One example is the city of Copenhagen, whose greenbelt model, called the Finger Plan, shows morphological characteristics different from the circular one. In this case, on the ground as the palm of an open hand. The palm is the central zone and the fingers the spaces of expansion towards the outside. Between these fingers, there are a set of natural spaces. Thus, a radial model was designed in order to facilitate the availability of nearby green areas and the operation of the lines of public transport [213]. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 18 of 36

As indicated, greenbelts do not have a high level of development in the US. However, this does not mean that the authorities are entirely renouncing to regulate the territorial expansion of cities. Its main instrument is the establishment of temporary restrictions on construction through Urban Containment Policies (UCP). UCP limit the space that can be developed during a certain period of time. Beyond this limit, the land must be reserved for agricultural work. The aim of this instrument is not to prevent urban expansion or to restrict urban development, but to ensure that there are not too many urban spaces left without construction, while protecting agricultural spaces that could be of strategic importance. Likewise, UCP estimate the space requirements in order to have sufficient land supply for undertaking urban development projects [214–216].

5.1.2. Use of Disused Spaces: The Brownfields If the objective of the greenbelts is to contain the processes of suburbanization and guarantee the provision of green areas around the central city, the objective of the so-called brownfields is to increase the supply of land, usually in degraded central areas, generating alternatives that could prevent migrations to suburban zones. In this sense, brownfields rose in response to the processes of post-industrial transition [91]. The phenomenon has been especially important in the US, Canada, and some European countries that, strongly affected by deindustrialization processes, had important bags of land situated in degraded industrial areas at relatively central locations [217]. The recovered spaces can be of various kinds, from the largest ones, which would include entire blocks or neighborhoods (houses in a state of disrepair, squares, streets, gardens), to specific structures or megastructures: Abandoned factories, disused shopping centers, buildings in substandard housing, train and bus stations, disused train tracks, warehouses, inactive port areas, etc. The recovery of these spaces can also have different characteristics, requiring different types of action, urban regeneration, environmental regeneration, or both simultaneously. The definition of the concept of brownfield is not homogeneous either. Following Ferber and Grimski, brownfield land is that which has vestiges of a previous use, contrasting with the term greenfield, which has not been previously used. This is essentially the European meaning of the term in which brownfield land is not necessarily contaminated [218]. However, in the US, a much more restrictive meaning of the term brownfield is used, as long as it requires the presence or possible presence of a contaminant or hazardous substance, discarding, of course, those considered as highly contaminating [219]. Having made these remarks, it should be noted that brownfield recovery processes have been particularly intense in the UK. Already in 1998, the UK had set a target: Six out of ten new homes to be build in the next ten years should be on brownfield land [220]. In 2005, the data from the National Brownfield Strategy, approved two years earlier, showed that 73 percent of new houses occupied brownfield space. Moreover, 62 percent of land used for new housing construction was brownfield space. Thus, there is a remarkable and high-density use of these spaces [219]. Most brownfields are located in densely populated places with a strong industrial tradition such as London, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham, Leeds, Portsmouth, or Sheffield [219]. On the contrary, in the US, brownfield spaces are concentrated in areas with lower income levels. In this sense, the different meaning of brownfields in the US has a considerable downward effect on prices [221].

5.2. Strategies for Accompanying and Mitigating the Effects of Urban Sprawl

5.2.1. Models for Limiting Vehicle Traffic and Developing Sustainable Forms of Transport Regarding transport and mobility, different policies have been used in recent years to try to reduce congestion, energy consumption, and pollution. These policies shown in Figure6 can be grouped under the generic name of Traffic Oriented Developments (TOD). They aimed to influence both negative environmental and social effects of congestion and high social segregation that are characteristic of the dispersed city. TOD encompasses the construction of a wide range of infrastructures, but they are also Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 19 of 36 associated with other economic and institutional measures [222]. Firstly, they include some actions directed at discouraging the use of the car, especially when they are related with local regulations. They comprise issues such as the establishment of speed limits in residential areas, road modifications, or changes in parking facilities. In this last sense, the reduction of parking spaces in city centers and their parallel increase in other locations related to the use of other means of transport is promoted [223].

Figure 6. Main elements of Traffic Oriented Developments (TOD).

Secondly, TODs promote the use of public transport. This is associated with the establishment of an appropriate structure of prices and tariffs which must be affordable for users, while ensuring sufficient resources to maintain high-quality standards. The development of integrated systems in which the offer and timetables of the different means of transport are coordinated is also promoted [224]. Moreover, the promotion of public transport often involves the construction of new infrastructures, such as metropolitan railways, light rails, trams, which will be analyzed below. Finally, one of the central elements of TOD is to increase the attractiveness of walking and cycling, which, in turn, is related to another set of actions, such as the increase in the size of sidewalks and the facilities associated with them (benches, trees, etc.), the promotion of pedestrian areas, the construction of bicycle lanes, or the integration of the bicycle with other means of transport [225]. It should be stressed that although there is, especially since the early 1980s, a general movement of promotion of public transport, the starting situation in the different countries (or even in the different urban areas) was quite different. As indicated in Section3, the US is objectively much further away from the conditions needed for the optimal operation of sustainable mobility patterns, with its cities characterized by higher levels of dispersion [226]. This limits the potential population that can be served by any form of public transport. In addition, as it has also been indicated, the price of gasoline has historically been lower in the US. Something similar can be said of the historically higher roadway provision or the rate of motorization [46]. In Europe, by contrast, the existence of more compact cities, a certain tradition of urban sprawl regulation (especially in some countries, such as Germany) and more developed public transport systems created more favorable conditions for changing mobility models [224]. Moreover, these are transformations that cannot be understood without considering the scalar dimension that we have referred to several times. Some elements, for example, the financing of certain Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 20 of 36 projects, have a Central State and, sometimes, even a supranational dimension. Others, such as the reduction of maximum speeds or the reduction of parking spaces in central areas, are essentially local responsibilities. The most successful cases of the development of sustainable urban transport systems, such as Germany, are characterized by strong coordination of action at different scales [227]. However, local success stories also matter because they demonstrate that Sustainable Transitions are not only possible, but desirable and associated with higher levels of life quality. For instance, Freiburg has sometimes been symbolically considered the “environmental capital” of Germany [228]. Although the transition to sustainable transport models implies, as we have seen, a multiplicity of changes, the aspects that, on the one hand, are most noteworthy and that, on the other, have the greatest capacity to promote a broader set of transformations (from limiting vehicle speeds, to increase the size of sidewalks or the pedestrianization of certain areas) are associated with certain mega-projects [229]. In recent years, the extension or ex-novo construction of metropolitan railway and tram networks has been particularly relevant [230]. There is a fuzzy boundary between traditional urban rail, light rail and tram, so that models are often developed that partially integrate one and the other [231]. Having made this clarification, it can be said that light rail has had the highest level of development in recent years in both NA and WE. For instance, in the case of the US, “Over 25 billion dollars were spent between 1970 and 2000s in 14 major cities of the United States on the construction of new rail transit lines” [232] (p. 155). These massive investments had, following the multiscalar character previously mentioned, strong support from the Federal Government, at least until the middle of the 2000s, through two main instruments: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and the Transportation Equity Act (TEA21) of 1998 [233,234]. Some of the main metropolitan areas that developed light train systems were Cleveland, San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, Sacramento, San Jose, Los Angeles, Baltimore, St. Louis, Denver, Dallas, or Salt-Lake City [235]. In any case, this is not an exhaustive list citing the literature other cases such as Miami [236], Seattle [237], or Washington DC [232]. In general, the construction of these infrastructures has not resulted in an appreciable modification of mobility patterns in the US that continue to be based on the use of private vehicles. This is partly explained because of the highly dispersed morphology of the cities in the US in which many of the suburbs are often only reachable by car. In this context, it can be understood that the levels of use of public transport not only did not increase but fell. This reduction was from 12% to 6% between 1970 and 2000. Furthermore, the negative social bias of those who use public transport (those who do not have the resources to essentially acquire and maintain a private vehicle) did not change either. In fact, the participation of suburban residents in public transport was particularly low [232]. Moreover, this negative assessment of people using public transport contributes if not to a certain resistance, at least a lack of interest in the development of public transport systems from many middle-class suburbs. Not surprisingly, since the mid-2000s, the Federal Government canceled the privileged funding lines. Therefore, it is possible to speak of a failed policy. Additionally, the effects of these public investments in terms of the revaluation of the affected areas were ambivalent. Sometimes, processes of real estate revaluation associated with gentrification are observed. This would be the case of San Francisco or Washington DC [232,235]. Other times, however, there are processes of loss of property value and counter-gentrification, which follow the logic by which public transport attracts poverty. This would be the case of Los Angeles or Portland [232,235]. This uncertainty in the results undoubtedly limits the involvement of private capital in the currently prevailing strongly financialized context. In the case of WE, there has also been a strong process of construction of Light Rail Systems in an institutional environment also marked by multi-scalarity in which both the European Union [238] and the different national, regional, and local governments have a key role. The construction of Light Rail Systems has been especially relevant in countries such as the UK with projects with a strong social and political projection in cities like Newcastle, Manchester, or Nottingham. These infrastructures had Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 21 of 36 strong financial support from the British State, in the framework of the so-called Ten Years Transport Plan of 2000, which, however, was withdrawn in 2004 [239]. The construction of light trains, which sometimes change tracks and are transformed into trams, has also been particularly numerous in a large number of German, French, and Spanish cities. In the German case, the aim was to recover a previously lost tradition: The operation of trams that existed until the 1950s and 1960s. Nowadays, there are outstanding cases of development in cities such as Berlin, Bremen, Cologne, Dortmund, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Munich, or Stuttgart. In France and Spain, these infrastructures are being created almost ex-novo. Some French cities with a presence of light rail systems are Angers, Bordeaux, Grenoble, Le Havre, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Montpellier, Nice, Paris, or Toulouse. It has also been developed in Spanish cities such as Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Madrid, Seville, and Saragossa. There are also prominent examples of development in other countries, such as Switzerland or Portugal [230]. The construction of light trains has often been associated with urban development projects that have resulted in a revaluation of the areas under intervention. This has favored the emergence and popularization of public-private partnership schemes, which are very present in the case of Spain, for example [240]. It is also very relevant to stress the strong development of cycling in some European countries. In this sense, the bicycle is an important means of transport that accounts for more than 10% of urban travels in Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands. The extensive construction of bicycle lanes and parking facilities, the integration with other means of transport and the restrictions on vehicle traffic seem to be among the reasons for this increase [225]. However, in other European countries, such as UK, the importance of bicycle travel is still very low. Finally, it should be noted that this range of initiatives has an effect on changing actual urban mobility patterns in some European countries. The most paradigmatic case would be Germany, which has managed to significantly reduce the share of car travel. These reductions are also occurring in a number of major European cities. Thus, between the first half of the 1990s and the first half of the 2010s, car share travels were reduced by 13 points in Vienna, 10 in Paris, 9 in Copenhagen, and 8 in Amsterdam [222]. There is also stagnation or even a slight reduction in the rate of vehicle ownership in countries such as Germany [241].

5.2.2. Provision of Green Areas As previously mentioned, one of the fundamental elements of Green Urbanism is the promotion of compact city patterns, enabling to curb the trend towards suburbanization. This implies confronting the image of greater proximity of the suburbs to nature, as opposed to the greater artificiality of the central city [242,243]. The generation of an extensive and close network of green spaces plays a central role for this purpose [244]. These networks of green spaces have a particularly strong multifunctional element especially valued in the current context of post-modern living [245]. In this way, the creation and expansion of green areas are related to a particularly wide range of positive outputs such as:

(a) Reduction of environmental risks, such as flooding [246] (b) Adaptation to climate changes by, for example, controlling the effect of urban heat islands [247,248]. (c) Improving key elements of urban ecosystems: Enhancement of biodiversity [249], capture of carbon [250], or increase of air quality [251]. (d) Promotion of leisure, recreation, and sport [252] (e) Fostering social relations [253,254] (f) Improving social care actions, especially for aging populations [255] (g) Positive health effects: Reduction of mortality rate [256], cardiovascular diseases [257] or mental health problems [258]

Such greening policies have often concentrated on the provision (according to more or less ambitious schemes) of green areas in large sectors, usually in the central city, on the basis of three fundamental indicators: Park proximity, park acreage, and park quality [259]. Although the provision of green areas is a policy with a long tradition in both WE and NA, differentiated policy orientations Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 22 of 36 can be observed [243,260]. However, in both cases, the studies coincide in highlighting the existence of strong social differences in access to green infrastructures. In the American case, there is a better and more abundant supply of green areas in the case of middle-class suburbs, compared to the inner city [242,243]. However, beyond this general statement, the extensive existing academic literature coincides in indicating elements of race, education, and income in order to explain different degrees of access to green areas [261–263]. In this sense, some approaches have mostly focused on racial elements [261], while others on educational and income differences [263]. In this context, many cities have embarked on programs to increase the provision of urban green spaces in poorly endowed central areas with, in some cases, significant levels of socio-environmental degradation. These policies have led to the conversion of remnant urban lands and the reuse of spaces of obsolete or underused transport infrastructure [262]. There are specific studies on the impact of this type of actions in cities such as Atlanta [261], Detroit [245], New York [264], or Portland [265]. Those policies are the result of different factors, partially contradictory to each other as we can see in Figure7. On the one hand, these are the products of social demands voiced by distinct urban movements, based on a generic demand for equity, under the form of environmental justice [243,262,266]. On the other hand, improvements in habitability, environmental quality, and social relations are often associated with processes of green gentrification [267]. Green gentrification has been observed in cities such as Atlanta [268], Chicago [269], New York [270], or Vancouver [271]. However, it was not confirmed in the case of Portland [272]. Moreover, green gentrification must be understood in the context of a strongly financialized urban model, where, as was seen in Section2, real estate wealth is a central element in the actually existing forms of social structuring. In this sense, many of these developments involve significant costs, which often tend to be financed, at least partially, by private capital and have an effect on housing prices [273].

Figure 7. Contradictory elements in the policies of urban provision of green areas.

WE follows similar patterns to those observed in NA in a parallel socio-political context [260]. However, there are some differences to emphasize. Firstly, the affirmation of the schemes of green urbanism has the reference of more compact cities, therefore, what is really claimed is densification of quality. In this sense, the deregulated operation of real estate markets in WE sometimes produces density increases that lead to the reduction of green spaces [274]. Furthermore, from an urban morphology perspective, the provision of green areas in inner-city is not independent of greenbelts analyzed in Section 4.1, which are more developed in the European case. Greenbelts are particularly relevant from an ecological point of view as they make it possible to connect inland urban areas with adjacent rural areas, increasing the complexity of urban ecosystems. Finally, it should also be noted that Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 23 of 36 there is great heterogeneity in Europe, not only among countries, but also among cities. In any case, historically, the provision of green areas has been, on average, higher in northern Europe [275,276]. Consequently, in the case of WE, there is a prevalence of especially contested processes because green areas must compete with other uses, such as facilities for educational, social and community purposes, alternative means of transport, etc. [244]. In general terms, the research conducted showed that, between 1990 and 2000, there was no significant expansion of green areas in the European Union as a whole, despite the growing strength of urban sustainability discourse. On the contrary, in the period between 2000 and 2006, there was a relevant increase in green areas in both northern and southern Europe [276]. In the context of quality densification, but also of increasing income differences and financialization, the growing provision of environmental services in certain central areas has also been often accompanied by processes of green gentrification. Such processes can be observed in cities both in northern (Berlin or Ghent) and southern Europe (Barcelona), sometimes making the conciliation of greening and environmental justice problematic [277–279].

6. Discussion and Preliminary Conclusions The search for sustainable models has become one of the aims of public policies in recent years. Accordingly, several elements have been increasingly stressed. One of them has been the role of the local level in promoting specific forms of sustainable transition [280]. Another has been the relevance of cities in those processes, as it is not possible to conceive sustainability without the urban [281,282]. In this context, the academic literature agrees that urban sprawl is inextricably associated with major sustainability problems. In the previous lines, many of them have been seen. Purely economic aspects (the high hidden costs that are not internalized or the growing family debt, for example), but also social (such as the high levels of racial and social segregation or the effects on health) and environmental aspects (land use and degradation or disruption of water cycles) are included [119,132,140,144]. Therefore, it could be argued that urban sprawl is the outcome of production and consumption patterns with relevant hidden costs that are neither computed, nor allocated, nor charged. However, despite this, there are two main elements that make it impossible to think of urban sprawl reversion, at least in the short term. On the one hand, after at least 70 years of urban sprawl, an important built capital has been generated both in NA and WE. In market economies, this capital must maintain its value in order not to provoke situations of economic recession [57]. Thus, it is currently unthinkable to massively abandon territorially dispersed suburbs, frequently formed by houses with a high real estate value, which are an important part of the wealthy people’s lives [51]. Given these conditions, there is practically no social basis for a radical change in urban morphologies, beyond more or less rhetorical calls to “recover” cities’ compactness. On the other hand, there has been a particularly strong real estate component in the neoliberal-globalized model that is observed since the 1980s. Institutional changes, such as the growing relevance of entrepreneurialism, the strong processes of State’s rescaling, or financialization, have led to a real estate hypertrophy [27,68,72]. The historical conjunction of these processes has caused not only suburban booming but also recurrent situations of real estate financial bubbles. In fact, the early 2000s saw the generation of what is possibly the largest bubble, at least in the last century. Thus, its bursting had strong effects on both NA (with California or Florida as prominent cases) and WE (see the cases of Spain or Ireland) [82,128,129]. The socio-economic consequences of this kind of bursts mean to avoid, as much as possible, risky situations. This excludes “radical” policies of containment or reversal of urban sprawl. Additionally, the non-reversal and non-containment of urban sprawl processes is not only explained by macro-economic and macro-social reasons. Moreover, individuals in their decision-making autonomy are relevant. In this sense, despite the strong questioning that the irruption of the concept of urban sustainability has implied, broad groups of people continue to look for housing models based Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 24 of 36 on low-density open spaces separated from the city centers. In other words, the city-garden ideal generated at the beginning of the last century continues to be a socially relevant benchmark. This capacity of “seduction” is particularly effective because it affects individuals with high purchasing power and access to credit. Consequently, it tends to be emulated by social groups with lower levels of income [36]. Moreover, some of the deficiencies initially associated with urban sprawl models have been attenuated through the years. For instance, the commercial, leisure, and productive facilities of many of suburban areas have grown significantly. In fact, in many cases, they are currently better than those observed in inner-city areas [111]. Moreover, areas with less pollution, higher water quality, etc. are increasingly valued. This is generating green gentrification processes that, in many cases, reinforce the diffuse suburban model [68]. In this context, there are academic positions that assume that the sum of these individual benefits could compensate for the costs that they may generate, especially if technologies are progressively improved (less polluting vehicles, cleaner energies, more efficient management of integral water cycles, new ways of organizing work, etc.). [19,22]. Nevertheless, on the other side, since the mid-seventies of the last century, a strong discourse has emerged, first of environmental protection, and later of sustainability. This discourse was not merely rhetorical but was associated with important transformations in the forms and ways of making cities [20,102]. The discourse of sustainability has had different impacts. On the one hand, it has transformed, in a certain sense, individual decision models by introducing a whole set of elements, such as greening, urban ecosystems, walkability, etc. [102]. This process, however, has not been generalized. In this context, a struggle can be observed between the old (the consumption of large extensions of territory on the basis of the massive use of the car and the imaginary of the garden-city of the early 20th century) and the new (the new approaches of green urbanism). This confrontation has social groups, political visions, and segments of capital behind them. In addition, the sustainability discourse has had a strong impact on many public policies. This can be explained, in part, by the extension and generalization of the urban sprawl and its impacts. The extensive use of land, the loss of agricultural production spaces, the loss of spaces of landscape heritage value, the destruction of ecosystems, the extension of sealed soils, run-offs, intensification and congestion associated with mobility, inefficient uses of water and energy, health problems due to a lack of physical mobility, stress, air pollution, etc. are insistently listed by the academic literature. In this context, an increasing number of public interventions have tried if not to stop, at least to regulate and control some of these processes. Thus, a large number of policies have been implemented, including some directed at containing urban sprawl and others at reducing its most damaging elements [196,197]. In the first case, previous preventive measures were required. In the second case, however, palliative accompanying measures were taken. The degree to which these policies have been implemented also varies greatly. In any case, as has been seen in the previous pages, a substantially greater application can be observed in WE. This can be explained by several factors. On the one hand, there is, especially in some Northern European countries, a greater ecological awareness, which leads individuals and also public authorities to make other decisions. Furthermore, the implementation of sustainable policies has been favored by the morphological features of many European cities, which have traditionally been more compact, and have experienced lower levels of social segregation. Likewise, the application of sustainable policies has been reinforced by various institutional elements, such as a tradition of greater regulation and urban planning, or the existence of better and more extensive forms of public transport [20]. Finally, in the case of some cities of WE, sustainable urban policies have been associated with processes of intense monetary revaluation of some centers with attractive historical heritage, in which strong processes of gentrification and touristification can be observed [35]. On the other hand, in the context of NA, many of these policies have also been implemented, but in some cases, such as transport, their results have been modest and even disappointing. In this sense, the more dispersed character of cities in NA, as well as other Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 25 of 36 elements of their social structure, is causing sustainable transition processes to take different forms than those observed in WE. In any case, the urban policies to be applied cannot be generalized because the realities are diverse. In other words, urban sustainability must be considered, in any case, as a socio-environmental construction. However, for the reasons mentioned above, the socio-environmental constructions to be implemented, despite being important, cannot reverse or even contain the urban sprawl. In the face of this reality, there remains only the possibility of reducing its negative consequences as much as possible. In other words, this means making as sustainable as possible, what is, for the reasons mentioned above, structurally unsustainable. In other words, sustainability is a relevant element in the current morphology of cities, but not because it reduces or contains the urban sprawl but because it has a growing and paradoxical capacity for shaping it. Summarizing, the only available option is to try to “sustain what is unsustainable”. Given these parameters, a set of urban policies are explored which, without aspiring to radically modify urban phenomena, do try to give cities another face, from an approach which, in general terms, can be framed within ecological modernization [201–203]. Thus, following patterns of green urbanism, attempts have been made to limit urban expansion (through greenbelts), to use degraded areas for residential purposes (brownfields), to promote walkability, cycling and public transport (Transport-Oriented Developments), or to substantially increase infrastructures such as green zones [206,220,222,259]. In many cases, those policies have had a significant urban impact, contributing to the generation of new social demands about housing and habitability, and also new forms of business. Thus, the initiatives of ecological modernization result in generating the necessary socio-political space for the irruption of new rounds of real estate capital accumulation (in this case, more ecological) that are superimposed on the previous rounds [57]. In other words, sustainability becomes a basic argument to understand the forms that the processes of creative destruction of the built capital assume in the first decades of the 21st century.

Author Contributions: C.B.-S. and D.C.-H. have both worked in the conceptualization, validation and compilation of the academic literature revised in this article. C.B.-S. has written the first original draft. D.C.-H. has revised and edited the first draft insisting on the development of the most relevant theoretical issues. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: We are grateful for the comments of two anonymous reviewers. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights June 2019. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/ Publications/Files/WPP2019_10KeyFindings.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2020). 2. Dicken, P. El Mundo ‘no’es Plano: La Profunda Desigualdad Geográfica de la Globalización. VV. AA. Las Múltiples Caras de la Globalización. BBVA. Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy. Available online: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/wp-content/uploads/static/pdf/032_PETER_ DICKEN.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2020). 3. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019. 4. Polese, M.; Shearmur, R.R. Economie Régionale et Urbaine, 3rd ed.; Economica: Paris, France, 2009. 5. Marshall, A. Principles of Economics, 8th ed.; Macmillan and Co: London, UK, 1890. 6. Torres Gutierrez, T.P.; Ordóñez, J.A. Agglomeration economies and urban productivity. Reg. J. Ersa 2019, 6, 17–24. [CrossRef] 7. Pablo-Martí, F.; Muñoz-Yebra, C. Localización empresarial y economías de aglomeración: El debate en torno a la agregación espacial. Investig. Reg. J. Reg. Res. 2009, 15, 139–166. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/289/28911701007.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2020). 8. Harvey, D. The Limits to Capital; Chicago University Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1982. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 26 of 36

9. Bae, C.H.C. Urban Sprawl in Western Europe and the United States; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. 10. Coq-Huelva, D.; Asián-Chaves, R. Urban Sprawl and Sustainable Urban Policies. A Review of the Cases of Lima, Mexico City and Santiago de Chile. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5835. [CrossRef] 11. Deng, F.F.; Huang, Y. Uneven land reform and urban sprawl in China: The case of Beijing. Prog. Plan. 2004, 61, 211–236. [CrossRef] 12. Yuan, M.; Song, Y.; Guo, L. Exploring determinants of urban form in China through an empirical study among 115 cities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3648. [CrossRef] 13. Cobbinah, P.B.; Aboagye, H.N. A Ghanaian twist to urban sprawl. Land Use Policy 2017, 61, 231–241. [CrossRef] 14. Galster, G.; Hanson, R.; Ratcliffe, M.R.; Wolman, H.; Coleman, S.; Freihage, J. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Hous. Policy Debate 2001, 12, 681–717. [CrossRef] 15. Sprawl: A Compact History. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karel_Martens/publication/ 236119793_Basing_Transport_Planning_on_Principles_of_Social_Justice/links/0deec52b15f847d320000000/ Basing-Transport-Planning-on-Principles-of-Social-Justice.pdf#page=215 (accessed on 13 May 2020). 16. Churchman, A. Disentangling the concept of density. J. Plan. Lit. 1999, 13, 389–411. [CrossRef] 17. Lehmann, S. Density. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies; Orum, A.M., García, M., Judd, D.R., Pow, C.P., Roberts, B.R., Eds.; Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–9. 18. Tsai, Y.H. Quantifying urban form: Compactness versus’ sprawl’. Urban Stud. 2005, 42, 141–161. [CrossRef] 19. Glaeser, E.L.; Kahn, M.E. Sprawl and urban growth. In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics; Henderson, J.V., Thisse, J.F., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 4, pp. 2481–2527. 20. European Urban Sprawl: Sustainability, Cultures of (Anti) Urbanism and Hybrid Cityscapes. Available online: https://plus.si.cobiss.net/opac7/bib/35870562?lang=en (accessed on 18 May 2020). 21. Patacchini, E.; Zenou, Y.; Henderson, J.V.; Epple, D. Urban sprawl in Europe. In Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs; Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; pp. 125–149. 22. Nechyba, T.J.; Walsh, R.P. Urban sprawl. J. Econ. Perspect. 2004, 18, 177–200. [CrossRef] 23. Khan, K.S.; Kunz, R.; Kleijnen, J.; Antes, G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J. R. Soc. Med. 2003, 96, 118–121. [CrossRef][PubMed] 24. Ramalho, R.; Adams, P.; Huggard, P.; Hoare, K. Literature review and constructivist grounded theory methodology. Fqs-Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 2015, 16, 3. 25. Atkinson, G.; Oleson, T. Urban sprawl as a path dependent process. J. Econ. Issues 1996, 30, 609–615. [CrossRef] 26. Peng, M.W.; Wang, D.Y.; Jiang, Y. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2008, 39, 920–936. [CrossRef] 27. Harvey, D. From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 1989, 71, 3–17. [CrossRef] 28. Harvey, D. Flexible accumulation through urbanization reflections on ”post-modernism” in the American city. Perspecta 1990, 19, 251–272. [CrossRef] 29. Peck, J.; Tickell, A. Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 2002, 34, 380–404. [CrossRef] 30. El Crecimiento Urbano de las Ciudades: Enfoques Desarrollista, Autoritario, Neoliberal y Sustentable. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5926288 (accessed on 28 April 2020). 31. La Ciudad Neoliberal: Estímulos de Reflexión Crítica en “La Ciudad Neoliberal: Gentrificación y Exclusión En Santiago de Chile, Buenos Aires, Ciudad de México y Madrid”. Available online: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/337547684_La_ciudad_neoliberal_estimulos_de_reflexion_critica (accessed on 28 April 2020). 32. Harvey, D. The right to the city. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2003, 27, 939–941. [CrossRef] 33. Gottmann, J. Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the United States; Twentieth Century Fund: New York, NY, USA, 1961; Volume 8. [CrossRef] 34. Jackson, K.T. The Spatial Dimensions of Social Control: Race, Ethnicity, and Government Housing Policy in the United States, 1918–1968. In Modern Industrial Cities: History, Policy, and Survival; Stave, B., Ed.; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1981; pp. 79–128. 35. Cruz, M.; Parrillo, A. El cambio de morfología de la zona metropolitana de Green Bay: Cambios demográficos y económicos desde 1990 hasta 2007. In Ciudades Medias: Formas De Expansión Urbana 2013; Biblioteca Nueva: Madrid, Spain, 2013; pp. 99–142. 36. Bourdieu, P. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. In Food and Culture, 3rd ed.; Counihan, C., Van Esteric, P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; pp. 31–40. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 27 of 36

37. Hur, M.; Nasar, J.L.; Chun, B. Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 52–59. [CrossRef] 38. Ward, B.M. Suburbs against the Region: Homeowner Environmentalism in 1970s Detroit. J. Plan. Hist. 2019, 18, 83–101. [CrossRef] 39. Howard, E. Garden Cities of Tomorrow; Faber: London, UK, 1946; pp. 9–28. 40. Stephenson, B. The roots of the new urbanism: John Nolen’s garden city ethic. J. Plan. Hist. 2002, 1, 99–123. [CrossRef] 41. Koolhaas, R.; Avia, J.S. La Ciudad Genérica; Gustavo Gili: Barcelona, Spain, 2006. 42. Jiménez, V.; Hidalgo, R.; Campesino, A.J.; Alvarado, V. Normalización del modelo neoliberal de expansión residencial más allá del límite urbano en Chile y España. EURE 2018, 44, 27–46. [CrossRef] 43. Ewing, R.; Pendall, R.; Chen, D. Measuring sprawl and its transportation impacts. Transp. Res. Rec. 2003, 1831, 175–183. [CrossRef] 44. Traffic and Sprawl: Evidence from US Commuting from 1985–1997. Available online: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/261705748_Traffic_and_Sprawl_Evidence_from_US_Commuting_1985_To_1997 (accessed on 21 April 2020). 45. Blais, P. Perverse Cities: Hidden Subsidies, Wonky Policy, and Urban Sprawl. Available online: https://books.google.com.hk/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=MqtGJSWsDyMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=45. %09Blais,+P.+Perverse+Cities:+Hidden+Subsidies,+Wonky+Policy,+and+Urban+Sprawl%3B+UBC+ Press:+Vancouver,+BC,+Canada+2011&ots=yXYdXBcUAE&sig=cnbpyO8sgpvHTiRcsup4dpXfcRY& redir_esc=y&hl=zh-CN&sourceid=cndr#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 21 April 2020). 46. Pucher, J. Urban travel behavior as the outcome of public policy: The example of modal-split in Western Europe and North America. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1988, 54, 509–520. [CrossRef] 47. Brau, L. El coche mata la ciudad. In Ciudades Resistentes, Ciudades Posibles; Editorial UOC: Barcelona, Spain, 2017; pp. 209–221. ISBN 978-84-9116-870-6. 48. Puebla, J.G.; Palomares, J.C.G. Changes in the mobility in the Madrid metropolitan area. The increasing use of the private transport. In Anales De Geografía De La Universidad Complutense; Universidad Complutense de Madrid Spain: Madrid, Spain, 2005; Volume 25, p. 331. 49. Chorianopoulos, I.; Pagonis, T.; Koukoulas, S.; Drymoniti, S. Planning, competitiveness and sprawl in the Mediterranean city: The case of Athens. Cities 2010, 27, 249–259. [CrossRef] 50. Egidi, G.; Cividino, S.; Vinci, S.; Sateriano, A.; Salvia, R. Towards Local Forms of Sprawl: A Brief Reflection on Mediterranean Urbanization. Sustainability 2020, 12, 582. [CrossRef] 51. Harvey, D. The Urbanization of Capital: Studies in the History and Theory of Capitalist Urbanization; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1985. 52. Castells, M. La Cuestión Urbana; Siglo Veintiuno de España: Tres Cantos, Spain, 1979; p. 316. 53. Harvey, D. La Condición De La Posmodernidad; Amorrortu: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1998; Volume 228. 54. Tabb, W.K. The Long Default: New York City and the Urban Fiscal Crisis; NYU Press: New York, NY, USA, 1982; Volume 17. 55. Boyle, K. The ruins of Detroit: Exploring the urban crisis in the motor city. Mich. Hist. Rev. 2001, 27, 109–127. [CrossRef] 56. Castells, M. The rise of the network society. In The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture; Blackwell: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996; Volume 1. 57. Harvey, D. A Brief History of Neoliberalism; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007. 58. Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st Century Industrial Complexes. Available online: https://books.google.com.hk/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=ZKGsAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg= PP1&dq=Technopoles+of+the+World:+The+Making+of+21st+Century+Industrial+Complexes&ots= iFhqH4Uphr&sig=tjrTGS0wA3P--mYKi5BcnYea1Ao&redir_esc=y&hl=zh-CN&sourceid=cndr#v= onepage&q=Technopoles%20of%20the%20World%3A%20The%20Making%20of%2021st%20Century% 20Industrial%20Complexes&f=false (accessed on 28 April 2020). 59. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. Available online: https: //pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b03e/3eba54a2c1f4fcaa95deb14012445df6b50f.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2020). Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 28 of 36

60. The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate. Available online: https://books.google. com.hk/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=LCCvnLt2AbcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=60.%09Gillham,+O.+The+ Limitless+City:+A+Primer+on+the+Urban+Sprawl+Debate&ots=Z1THy_LKr1&sig=FqZwUy1X_ Ew8fUxIlZXM7w9oEvs&redir_esc=y&hl=zh-CN&sourceid=cndr#v=onepage&q=60.%09Gillham%2C% 20O.%20The%20Limitless%20City%3A%20A%20Primer%20on%20the%20Urban%20Sprawl%20Debate&f= false (accessed on 21 April 2020). 61. Financialization of Daily Life, Philadelphia. Available online: https://philpapers.org/rec/MARFOD (accessed on 21 April 2020). 62. Langley, P. Uncertain subjects of the Anglo-American financialization. Cult. Crit. 2007, 65, 67–91. [CrossRef] 63. Hall, S. Geographies of money and finance II: Financialization and financial subjects. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2011, 36, 403–411. [CrossRef] 64. Langley, P. Securitising suburbia: The transformation of Anglo-American mortgage finance. Compet. Chang. 2006, 10, 283–299. [CrossRef] 65. Kripner, G.R. The financialization of the American economy. Socio Econ. Rev. 2005, 3, 173–208. [CrossRef] 66. Singhal, S.; McGreal, S.; Berry, J. An evaluative model for city competitiveness: Application to UK cities. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 214–222. [CrossRef] 67. Coq-Huelva, D. Urbanisation and financialisation in the context of a rescaling state: The case of Spain. Antipode 2013, 45, 1213–1231. [CrossRef] 68. Brenner, N. New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [CrossRef] 69. Swyngedouw, E. Neither global nor local: Glocalization and the politics of scale. In Spaces of Globalization; Cox, K., Ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 137–166. 70. Delaney, D.; Leitner, H. The Political Construction of Scale. Political Geogr. 1997, 16, 93–97. [CrossRef] 71. Abellán, F.C. Las transformaciones recientes operadas en las periferias de las ciudades medias. El contexto de la ciudad difusa en la realidad española. In Ciudades Medias: Formas De Expansión Urbana; Biblioteca Nueva: Madrid, Spain, 2013; pp. 25–38. 72. Reparar los Impactos de la Burbuja Constructora. Scripta Nova. Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales 2015, 19. Available online: https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/ScriptaNova/article/view/15121 (accessed on 9 March 2020). 73. Squires, G. Partnership and the pursuit of the private city. In The Urban Sociology Reader; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; pp. 132–140. 74. Garvin, M.J. Enabling development of the transportation public-private partnership market in the United States. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 402–411. [CrossRef] 75. La Teoría del Régimen de Acumulación Financiarizado: Contenido, Alcance e Interrogantes. Available online: http://www.revistaeconomiacritica.org/sites/default/files/revistas/n1/4_teoria_regimen.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2020). 76. Bourguinat, H. La Tyrannie Des Marchés: Essai Sur L’Economie Virtuelle; Economica: Paris, France, 1995. 77. Wray, L.R. Money and Credit in Capitalist Economies: The Endogenous Approach; Edward Elgar: Hants, UK, 1990. 78. Werner, R.A. How do banks create money, and why can other firms not do the same? An explanation for the coexistence of lending and deposit-taking. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2014, 36, 71–77. [CrossRef] 79. Stiglittz, J. Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy; WW Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2010. 80. Monetary Policy with Abundant Liquidity: A New Operating Framework for the Federal Reserve. Available online: https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/monetary-policy-abundant-liquidity- new-operating-framework-federal (accessed on 9 March 2020). 81. Cour-Thimann, P.; Winkler, B. The ECB’s non-standard monetary policy measures: The role of institutional factors and financial structure. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2012, 28, 765–803. [CrossRef] 82. Langley, P. Debt, discipline and government: Foreclosure and forbearance in the subprime mortgage crisis. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2009, 41, 1404–1419. [CrossRef] 83. Schwartz, A. The credit crunch and subsidized low-income housing: The UK and US experience compared. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2011, 26, 353–374. [CrossRef] 84. Gowan, P. La Apuesta De La Globalización: La Geoeconomía Y El Imperialismo Euro–Estadounidense; Editorial Akal: Madrid, Spain, 1999. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 29 of 36

85. Strange, S. Casino Capitalism; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK, 2015. [CrossRef] 86. Wyly, E.; Hammel, D. Gentrification, housing policy, and the new context of urban redevelopment. Crit. Perspect. Urban Redev. 2001, 6, 211–276. [CrossRef] 87. Sequera, J.; Nofre, J. Shaken, not stirred: New debates on touristification and the limits of gentrification. City 2018, 22, 843–855. [CrossRef] 88. Pain, K. Examining ‘core–periphery’relationships in a global city-region: The case of London and South East England. Reg. Stud. 2008, 42, 1161–1172. [CrossRef] 89. Gilli, F. Sprawl or reagglomeration? The dynamics of employment deconcentration and industrial transformation in Greater Paris. Urban Stud. 2009, 46, 1385–1420. [CrossRef] 90. Crecimiento Suburbano Difuso y sin Fin en el Área Metropolitana de Sevilla entre 1980 y 2010. Algunos Elementos explicativos. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11441/49780 (accessed on 15 April 2020). 91. Arellano Ramos, B.; Roca Cladera, J. El urban sprawl, ¿un fenómeno de alcance planetario? Los ejemplos de México y España. Ace Archit. City Environ. 2010, 12, 115–148. [CrossRef] 92. Reckien, D.; Karecha, J. Sprawl in European cities: The comparative background. In Urban Sprawl in Europe: Landscapes, Land-Use Change and Policy; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 39–67. 93. Cuadrado-Ciuraneta, S.; Durà-Guimerà, A.; Salvati, L. Not only tourism: Unravelling suburbanization, second-home expansion and “rural” sprawl in Catalonia, Spain. Urban Geogr. 2017, 38, 66–89. [CrossRef] 94. Bell, D. Variations on the Rural Idyll. In Handbook of Rural Studies; Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooney, P., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2006; pp. 149–160. [CrossRef] 95. Kondo, M.C.; Rivera, R.; Rullman, S., Jr. Protecting the idyll but not the environment: Second homes, amenity migration and rural exclusion in Washington State. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 106, 174–182. [CrossRef] 96. Winkler, R. Living on lakes: Segregated communities and inequality in a natural amenity destination. Sociol. Q. 2013, 54, 105–129. [CrossRef] 97. Nelson, P.B.; Hines, J.D. Rural gentrification and networks of capital accumulation—A case study of Jackson, Wyoming. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2018, 50, 1473–1495. [CrossRef] 98. Phillips, M. Rural Gentrification and the Processes of Class Colonisation. J. Rural Stud. 1993, 9, 123–140. [CrossRef] 99. Phillips, M. Other Geographies of Gentrification. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2004, 28, 5–30. [CrossRef] 100. Alonso González, P. Heritage and Rural Gentrification in Spain: The Case of Santiago Millas. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2017, 23, 125–140. [CrossRef] 101. Solana-Solana, M. Rural Gentrification in Catalonia, Spain: A Case Study of Migration, Social Change and Conflicts in the Empordanet Area. Geoforum 2010, 41, 508–517. [CrossRef] 102. Kuhlman, T.; Farrington, J. What is sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 3436–3448. [CrossRef] 103. Sprawl: Definición, Causas Y Efectos. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2072/3572 (accessed on 2 March 2020). 104. Walker, R.E.; Keane, C.R.; Burke, J.G. Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Health Place 2010, 16, 876–884. [CrossRef][PubMed] 105. Shaw, H.J. Food deserts: Towards the development of a classification. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2006, 88, 231–247. [CrossRef] 106. Hendrickson, D.; Smith, C.; Eikenberry, N. Fruit and vegetable access in four low-income food deserts communities in Minnesota. Agric. Hum. Values 2006, 23, 371–383. [CrossRef] 107. Cummins, S.; Macintyre, S. Food deserts evidence and assumption in health policy making. BMJ 2002, 325, 436–438. [CrossRef] 108. Apparicio, P.; Cloutier, M.S.; Shearmur, R. The case of Montreal’s missing food deserts: Evaluation of accessibility to food supermarkets. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2007, 6, 4. [CrossRef] 109. Gordon, C.; Purciel-Hill, M.; Ghai, N.R.; Kaufman, L.; Graham, R.; Van Wye, G. Measuring food deserts in New York City’s low-income neighborhoods. Health Place 2011, 17, 696–700. [CrossRef][PubMed] 110. Guy, C.; Clarke, G.; Eyre, H. Food retail change and the growth of food deserts: A case study of Cardiff. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2004, 32, 72–88. [CrossRef] 111. Hamidi, S. Urban sprawl and the emergence of food deserts in the USA. Urban Stud. 2020, 57, 1660–1675. [CrossRef] 112. Bastian, E.; Napieralski, J. Suburban food security: Walkability and nutritional access in metropolitan Detroit. Prof. Geogr. 2016, 68, 462–474. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 30 of 36

113. Brueckner, J.K. Urban sprawl: Diagnosis and remedies. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2000, 23, 160–171. [CrossRef] 114. 2019 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute. 2019. Available online: https://static.tti.tamu. edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2019.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2020). 115. Ciudades con Límites y Ciudades sin Límites. Manifestaciones de la Ciudad Difusa en Castilla-La Mancha. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2499269 (accessed on 11 May 2020). 116. Europea Environmental Agency (EEA), (2006): Land Accounts for Europe 1990–2000, Towards Integrated Land and Ecosystem Accounting. EEA, Report Nº 11/2006. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ publications/eea_report_2006_11 (accessed on 22 April 2020). 117. Doling, J.; Ronald, R. Home ownership and asset-based welfare. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2010, 25, 165–173. [CrossRef] 118. Janoschka, M.; Alexandri, G.; Ramos, H.O.; Vives-Miró, S. Tracing the socio-spatial logics of transnational landlords’ real estate investment: Blackstone in Madrid. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2020, 27, 125–141. [CrossRef] 119. Aalbers, M.B. The financialization of home and the mortgage market crisis. Compet. Chang. 2008, 12, 148–166. [CrossRef] 120. Bhutta, N. The ins and outs of mortgage debt during the housing boom and bust. J. Monet. Econ. 2015, 76, 284–298. [CrossRef] 121. Aalbers, M.B. The globalization and Europeanization of mortgage markets. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2009, 33, 389–410. [CrossRef] 122. Christophers, B. A tale of two inequalities: Housing-wealth inequality and tenure inequality. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2019.[CrossRef] 123. Longstaff, F.A. The subprime credit crisis and contagion in financial markets. J. Financ. Econ. 2010, 97, 436–450. [CrossRef] 124. Aalbers, M.B. The financialization of home and the mortgage market crisis. In The Financialization of Housing; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 40–63. 125. Harvey, D. The New Imperialism; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. 126. Rugh, J.S.; Massey, D.S. Racial segregation and the American foreclosure crisis. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2010, 75, 629–651. [CrossRef][PubMed] 127. Accumulation, dispossession, and debt: The racial logic of global capitalism—An introduction. Am. Q. 2012, 64, 361–385. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23273527 (accessed on 9 March 2020). [CrossRef] 128. Waldron, R.; Redmond, D. The extent of the mortgage crisis in Ireland and policy responses. Hous. Stud. 2014, 29, 149–165. [CrossRef] 129. Méndez, R.; Plaza, J. Crisis inmobiliaria y desahucios hipotecarios en España: Una perspectiva geográfica. Boletín De La Asoc. De Geógrafos Españoles 2016, 71, 99–127. [CrossRef] 130. Nadalin, V.; Igliori, D. Espraiamento urbano e periferização da pobreza na região metropolitana de São Paulo: Evidências empíricas. EURE 2015, 41, 91–111. [CrossRef] 131. Wiese, A. Places of Their Own: African American Suburbanization in the Twentieth Century; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. 132. Black housing, white finance: African American housing and home ownership in Evanston, Illinois, before 1940. J. Soc. Hist. 1999, 33, 429–460. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3789630 (accessed on 11 March 2020). [CrossRef] 133. Wiese, A. The other suburbanites: African American suburbanization in the North before 1950. J. Am. Hist. 1999, 85, 1495–1524. [CrossRef] 134. Glaeser, E.L.; Kahn, M.E.; Rappaport, J. Why do the poor live in cities? Natl. Bur. Econ. Res Work. Paper. 2000, 7636, 1–61. [CrossRef] 135. Jargowsky, P.A. Take the money and run: Economic segregation in US metropolitan areas. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1996, 61, 984–998. [CrossRef] 136. Cutler, D.M.; Glaeser, E.L.; Vigdor, J.L. The rise and decline of the American ghetto. J. Political Econ. 1999, 107, 455–506. [CrossRef] 137. Bayer, P.J.; McMillan, R.; Rueben, K.S. What drives racial segregation? New evidence using census microdata. New Evidence Using Census Microdata (July 2003). Yale Univ. Econ. Growth Cent. Discuss. Pap. 2003, 1–24. [CrossRef] 138. Shannon, J. Food deserts: Governing obesity in the neoliberal city. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2014, 38, 248–266. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 31 of 36

139. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Available online: http://bowlingalone. com/ (accessed on 13 March 2020). 140. Roux, A.V.D. Residential environments and cardiovascular risk. J. Urban Health 2003, 80, 569–589. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 141. Lopez, R. Urban sprawl and risk for being overweight or obese. Am. J. Public Health 2004, 94, 1574–1579. [CrossRef][PubMed] 142. Pohanka, M.; Fitzgerald, S. Urban sprawl and you: How sprawl adversely affects worker health. Aaohn J. 2004, 52, 242–246. [CrossRef][PubMed] 143. Vlahov, D.; Freudenberg, N.; Proietti, F.; Ompad, D.; Quinn, A.; Nandi, V.; Galea, S. Urban as a determinant of health. J. Urban Health 2007, 84, 16–26. [CrossRef] 144. Frumkin, H. Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Rep. 2002, 117, 201–217. [CrossRef] 145. Ewing, R.; Hamidi, S.; Grace, J.B. Urban sprawl as a risk factor in motor vehicle crashes. Urban Stud. 2016, 53, 247–266. [CrossRef] 146. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018. World Health Organization. 2018. Available online: https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2018/English- Summary-GSRRS2018.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2020). 147. Eurostat. Eurostat Database. 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lucas/data/primary- data/2018 (accessed on 11 May 2020). 148. Cervero, R.; Radisch, C. Travel choice in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods. Transp. Policy 1996, 3, 127–141. [CrossRef] 149. Cervero, R. Road expansion, urban growth, and induced travel: A path analysis. In Dialogues in Urban and Regional Planning2; Stiftel, B., Watson, V., Acselrad, H., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2006; pp. 296–329. 150. Krieger, A. The costs and benefits of sprawl? In Sprawl and Suburbia; Saunders, W.S., Ed.; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2005; pp. 44–56. 151. Bousmaha, A.; Boulkaibet, A. Planification foncière et espaces agricoles périurbains en Algérie. Le cas de l’agglomération de Skikda. Développement durable et territoires. Économiegéographiepolitiquedroitsociologie 2019, 10, 1–12. [CrossRef] 152. Renting, H.; Marsden, T.K.; Banks, J. Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ. Plan. A 2003, 35, 393–411. [CrossRef] 153. Mundler, P.; Laughrea, S. The contributions of short food supply chains to territorial development: A study of three Quebec territories. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 45, 218–229. [CrossRef] 154. Scalenghe, R.; Marsan, F.A. The anthropogenic sealing of soils in urban areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 90, 1–10. [CrossRef] 155. Lozano, A.V.; Vidal, C.A.; Díaz, J.S. Transformación de usos agrícolas tradicionales en superficies construidas. Cambios en los usos y coberturas del suelo en el municipio de Valencia (1956–2012). Estud. Geográficos 2017, 77, 671–692. [CrossRef] 156. Díaz, A.R.; Pedraza, A.C.; Morales, A.P. Expansión urbana y turismo en la Comarca del Campo de Cartagena-Mar Menor (Murcia). Impacto en el sellado del suelo. Cuad. De Tur. 2017, 39, 521–546. [CrossRef] 157. Vera-Rebollo, J.F.; Marco Molina, J.A. Impacto de los usos del suelo y erosión en cuencas vertientes del sur del País Valenciano. Investig. Geográficas 1988, 6, 7–31. [CrossRef] 158. Hill, J.; Megier, J.; Mehl, W. Land degradation, soil erosion and desertification monitoring in Mediterranean ecosystems. Remote Sens. Rev. 1995, 12, 107–130. [CrossRef] 159. Chen, J.; Theller, L.; Gitau, M.W.; Engel, B.A.; Harbor, J.M. Urbanization impacts on surface runoff of the contiguous United States. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 100, 470–481. [CrossRef] 160. Morote, Á.F.; Hernández, M. Urban sprawl and its effects on water demand: A case study of Alicante, Spain. Land Use Policy 2016, 50, 352–362. [CrossRef] 161. Martínez, F.L.; Morales, A.P. Influencia del turismo residencial sobre el riesgo de inundación en el litoral de la región de Murcia. Scripta Nova. Rev. Electrónica De Geogr. Y Cienc. Soc. 2017, 21, 577. [CrossRef] 162. Pérez-Morales, A.; Gil-Guirado, S.; Olcina-Cantos, J. Housing bubbles and increase of the exposure to floods. Failures in the floods management in the Spanish coast. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2018, 11, S302–S313. [CrossRef] 163. Barron, O.V.; Barr, A.D.; Donn, M.J. Effect of urbanisation on the water balance of a catchment with shallow groundwater. J. Hydrol. 2013, 485, 162–176. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 32 of 36

164. El Desarrollo Turístico-Inmobiliario de la España Mediterránea e Insular Frente a sus Referentes Internacionales (Florida y la Costa Azul): Un Análisis Comparado. Available online: https://revistas. um.es/turismo/article/view/140011 (accessed on 17 April 2020). 165. Urbanización Infraestructuras y Riesgos Naturales en la Periferia Montañosa de la Ciudad de Málaga: El Caso del Monte San Antón. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10630/9404 (accessed on 17 April 2020). 166. Del Mármol, C. The Quest for a Traditional Style: Architecture and Heritage Processes in a Pyrenean Valley. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2017, 23, 946–960. [CrossRef] 167. Dines, N. An Irreconcilable First-place: The Precarious Life of Tourism and Heritage in a Southern European Historic Centre. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2018, 24, 142–153. [CrossRef] 168. Alcindor, M.; Coq-Huelva, D. Refurbishment, vernacular architecture and invented traditions: The case of the Empordanet (Catalonia). Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2020, 1–16. [CrossRef] 169. Bourdieu, P. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1998. 170. Gillilan, D.M.; Brown, T.C. Instream Flow Protection: Seeking a Balance in Western Water Use; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. 171. Bithas, K. The European policy on water use at the urban level in the context of the water framework directive. Effectiveness, appropriateness and efficiency. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2008, 16, 1293–1311. [CrossRef] 172. Brown, T.C. Trends in water market activity and price in the western United States. Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42, 1–14. [CrossRef] 173. Salvaggio, M.; Futrell, R.; Batson, C.D.; Brents, B.G. Water scarcity in the desert metropolis: How environmental values, knowledge and concern affect Las Vegas residents’ support for water conservation policy. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2014, 57, 588–611. [CrossRef] 174. Troy, P.N.; Holloway, D.; Randolph, W. Water Use and the Built Environment: Patterns of Water Consumption in Sydney; City Futures Research Centre: Kensington, UK, 2005. 175. Morote-Seguido, Á.F. Factores que inciden en el consumo de agua doméstico. Estudio a partir de un análisis bibliométrico. Estud. Geográficos 2017, 78, 257–281. [CrossRef] 176. Diaz, J.R.; Knox, J.W.; Weatherhead, E.K. Competing demands for irrigation water: Golf and agriculture in Spain. Irrig. Drain. J. Int. Comm. Irrig. Drain. 2007, 56, 541–549. [CrossRef] 177. Vidal, M.; Domene, E.; Saurí, D. Changing geographies of water-related consumption: Residential swimming pools in suburban Barcelona. Area 2011, 43, 67–75. [CrossRef] 178. House-Peters, L.; Pratt, B.; Chang, H. Effects of urban spatial structure, sociodemographics, and climate on residential water consumption in hillsboro, oregon 1. Jawra J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2010, 46, 461–472. [CrossRef] 179. Harlan, S.L.; Yabiku, S.T.; Larsen, L.; Brazel, A.J. Household water consumption in an arid city: Affluence, affordance, and attitudes. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2009, 22, 691–709. [CrossRef] 180. Designing a Serious Game on Flood Risk Management and Housing/Urban Development for the Most Urbanized Islands of the California Delta. Available online: http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:2cead882-ab02- 4966-95b3-2a4e1525fc1c (accessed on 17 April 2020). 181. Manca, F.; Capelli, G.; Tuccimei, P. Sea salt aerosol groundwater salinization in the Litorale Romano natural reserve (Rome, Central Italy). Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 4179–4190. [CrossRef] 182. Brownstone, D.; Golob, T.F. The impact of residential density on vehicle usage and energy consumption. J. Urban Econ. 2009, 65, 91. [CrossRef] 183. Kaza, N. Urban form and transportation energy consumption. Energy Policy 2020, 136, 111049. [CrossRef] 184. Callender, E.; Rice, K.C. The urban environmental gradient: Anthropogenic influences on the spatial and temporal distributions of lead and zinc in sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 232–238. [CrossRef] 185. Calidad del Aire, Partículas en Suspensión y Metales. Available online: http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php? script=sci_arttext&pid=S1135-57272008000500001 (accessed on 27 April 2020). 186. Duong, T.T.; Lee, B.K. Determining contamination level of heavy metals in road dust from busy traffic areas with different characteristics. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 554–562. [CrossRef] 187. Ballester, F.; Saez, M.; Perez-Hoyos, S.; Iñíguez, C.; Gandarillas, A.; Tobias, A.; Alonso, E. The EMECAM project: A multicentre study on air pollution and mortality in Spain: Combined results for particulates and for sulfur dioxide. Occup. Environ. Med. 2002, 59, 300–308. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 33 of 36

188. Bauernschuster, S.; Hener, T.; Rainer, H. When labor disputes bring cities to a standstill: The impact of public transit strikes on traffic, accidents, air pollution, and health. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2017, 9, 1–37. [CrossRef] 189. Brown, M.A.; Southworth, F.; Sarzynski, A. The geography of metropolitan carbon footprints. Policy Soc. 2009, 27, 285–304. [CrossRef] 190. Liu, L.; Hwang, T.; Lee, S.; Ouyang, Y.; Lee, B.; Smith, S.J.; Bond, T.C. Health and climate impacts of future United States land freight modelled with global-to-urban models. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 105–112. [CrossRef] 191. Brown, M.A.; Southworth, F.; Stovall, T.K. Towards A Climate-Friendly Built Environment; Pew Center on Global Climate Change: Arlington, VA, USA, 2005. 192. Brenner, N.; Marcuse, P.; Mayer, M. Cities for People, Not for Profit: Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. 193. Carruthers, J.I. Evaluating the effectiveness of regulatory growth management programs: An analytic framework. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2002, 21, 391–405. [CrossRef] 194. Goldman, M. Constructing an Environmental State: Eco-governmentality and Other Transnational Practices of a ‘Green’ World Bank. Soc. Probl. 2001, 48, 499–523. [CrossRef] 195. Dressler, W. Green Governmentality and Swidden Decline on Palawan Island. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2014, 39, 250–264. [CrossRef] 196. Beatley, T. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; p. 491. [CrossRef] 197. Lehmann, S. Transforming the city for sustainability: The principles of green urbanism. J. Green Build. 2011, 6, 104–113. [CrossRef] 198. Aguado, I.; Barrutia, J.M.; Etxebarría, C. Anillos Verdes: Algunas experiencias europeas. Boletín De La Asoc. De Geógrafos Españoles 2017, 73, 463–467. [CrossRef] 199. Smart Growth in Canada: Implementation of a Planning Concept. Research Report (External Research Program); Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation/Société Canadienne D’hypothèques et de Logement. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10613/2985. (accessed on 26 February 2020). 200. Pezzi, C.H. De la ciudad caótica a la ciudad sostenible: ¿Hay respuestas urbanísticas para la ciudad sostenible? In Ciudades Resistentes, Ciudades Posibles; Editorial UOC: Barcelona, Spain, 2017; pp. 198–202. 201. Mol, A.P. Ecological modernization and the global economy. Glob. Environ. Politics 2002, 2, 92–115. [CrossRef] 202. Gonzalez, G.A. Urban sprawl, global warming and the limits of ecological modernisation. Environ. Politics 2005, 14, 344–362. [CrossRef] 203. Byrne, J.A.; Gleeson, B.; Howes, M.; Steele, W. The limits of ecological modernization as an adaptive strategy. In Planning for Climate Change: Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation for Spatial Planners; Davoudi, S., Crawford, J., Mehmood, A., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009; pp. 136–154. 204. Siedentop, S.; Fina, S.; Krehl, A. Greenbelts in Germany’s regional plans—An effective growth management policy? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 145, 71–82. [CrossRef] 205. Freestone, R. Greenbelts in city and regional planning. In From Garden City to Green City: The Legacy of Ebenezer Howard.; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2002; pp. 67–98. 206. Amati, M. Green belts: A twentieth-century planning experiment. In Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-First Century; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 21–38. 207. Bogart, W.T. Don’t Call it Sprawl: Metropolitan Structure in the 21st Century; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006. 208. Planificación, Cinturones Verdes y Límites al Crecimiento Urbano. Available online: https://www.cepchile.cl/ cep/site/docs/20170321/20170321164606/07.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2020). 209. Government urban growth controls. Int. Real Estate Rev. 2002, 5, 1–11. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist. psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.566.7489&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020). 210. Cohen, S.E. Greenbelts in London and Jerusalem. Geogr. Rev. 1994, 84, 74–89. [CrossRef] 211. Quigley, J.M.; Raphael, S. Is housing unaffordable? Why isn’t it more affordable? J. Econ. Perspect. 2004, 18, 191–214. [CrossRef] 212. Des Tendances De L’Urbanisation En France Et En Europe. Available online: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ hal-02270043/document (accessed on 10 March 2020). 213. López-Goyburu, P. Miradas innovadoras sobre la interfaz urbano-rural: El plan de Extensión de Ámsterdam, los planes del Condado de Londres y del Gran Londres, y el plan Dedos de Copenhague. EURE 2017, 43, 175–196. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 34 of 36

214. Woo, M.; Guldmann, J.M. Impacts of urban containment policies on the spatial structure of US metropolitan areas. Urban Stud. 2011, 48, 3511–3536. [CrossRef] 215. Hortas-Rico, M. Sprawl, blight, and the role of urban containment policies: Evidence from US cities. J. Reg. Sci. 2015, 55, 298–323. [CrossRef] 216. Han, A.T.; Go, M.H. Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 644–656. [CrossRef] 217. Dillon, L. Race, waste, and space: Brownfield redevelopment and environmental justice at the Hunters Point Shipyard. Antipode 2014, 46, 1205–1221. [CrossRef] 218. Ferber, U.; Grimski, D. Brownfields and Redevelopment of Urban Areas: A Report from the Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies (CLARINET); Umweltbundesamt: Wien, Austria, 2002; p. 137. 219. Longo, A.; Campbell, D. The determinants of brownfields redevelopment in England. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 67, 261–283. [CrossRef][PubMed] 220. Alker, S.; Joy, V.; Roberts, P.; Smith, N. The definition of brownfield. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2000, 43, 49–69. [CrossRef] 221. Alberini, A. Determinants and effects on property values of participation in voluntary cleanup programs: The case of Colorado. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2007, 25, 415–432. [CrossRef] 222. Buehler, R.; Pucher, J.; Gerike, R.; Götschi, T. Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: Lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Transp. Rev. 2017, 37, 4–28. [CrossRef] 223. Cervero, R. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. 224. Buehler, R. Transport policies, automobile use, and sustainable transport: A comparison of Germany and the United States. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2010, 30, 76–93. [CrossRef] 225. Pucher, J.; Buehler, R. Making cycling irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transp. Rev. 2008, 28, 495–528. [CrossRef] 226. Bertaud, A.; Richardson, H.W. Transit and Density: Atlanta, the United States and Western Europe. In Urban Sprawl in Western Europe and the United States; Ashgate: London, UK, 2004; pp. 293–310. 227. Pucher, J. Urban transport in Germany: Providing feasible alternatives to the car. Transp. Rev. 1998, 18, 285–310. [CrossRef] 228. Buehler, R.; Pucher, J. Sustainable transport in Freiburg: Lessons from Germany’s environmental capital. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2011, 5, 43–70. [CrossRef] 229. Peters, D.; Novy, J. Train station area development mega-projects in Europe: Towards a typology. Built Environ. 2012, 38, 12–30. [CrossRef] 230. Lois, R.C.; Pazos, M.P.;Wolff, J.P.Le tramway entre politique de transport et outil de réhabilitation urbanistique dans quelques pays européens: Allemagne, Espagne, France et Suisse. Ann. De Géographie 2013, 6, 619–643. [CrossRef] 231. Gunnarsson, B.; Löfgren, A. Light Rail: Experiences from Germany, France and Switzerland. 2001. Available online: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1024219 (accessed on 20 February 2020). 232. Kahn, M.E. Gentrification trends in new transit-oriented communities: Evidence from 14 cities that expanded and built rail transit systems. Real Estate Econ. 2007, 35, 155–182. [CrossRef] 233. Babalik-Sutcliffe, E. Urban rail systems: Analysis of the factors behind success. Transp. Rev. 2002, 22, 415–447. [CrossRef] 234. Paaswell, R.E. ISTEA: Infrastructure Investment and Land Use. In Transport and Urban Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2003; pp. 46–68. 235. Baker, D.M.; Lee, B. How does light rail transit (LRT) impact gentrification? Evidence from fourteen US urbanized areas. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019, 39, 35–49. [CrossRef] 236. Black, A. The recent popularity of light rail transit in North America. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 1993, 12, 150–159. [CrossRef] 237. Hess, C.L. Light-rail investment in Seattle: Gentrification pressures and trends in neighborhood ethnoracial composition. Urban Aff. Rev. 2020, 56, 154–187. [CrossRef] 238. Janic, M.; Reggiani, A. Integrated transport systems in the European Union: An overview of some recent developments. Transp. Rev. 2001, 21, 469–497. [CrossRef] 239. Knowles, R.D. What future for light rail in the UK after Ten Year Transport Plan targets are scrapped? Transp. Policy 2007, 14, 81–93. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 35 of 36

240. Sánchez-Soliño, A.; Vassallo, J.M. Using public-private partnerships to expand subways: Madrid-Barajas international airport case study. J. Manag. Eng. 2009, 25, 21–28. [CrossRef] 241. Kuhnimhof, T.; Buehler, R.; Wirtz, M.; Kalinowska, D. Travel trends among young adults in Germany: Increasing multimodality and declining car use for men. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 24, 443–450. [CrossRef] 242. Heynen, N.; Perkins, H.A.; Roy, P. The political ecology of uneven urban green space: The impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producingenvironmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Aff. Rev. 2006, 42, 3–25. [CrossRef] 243. Boone, C.G.; Buckley, G.L.; Grove, J.M.; Sister, C. Parks and people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2009, 99, 767–787. [CrossRef] 244. Tappert, S.; Klöti, T.; Drilling, M. Contested urban green spaces in the compact city: The (re-) negotiation of urban gardening in Swiss cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 170, 69–78. [CrossRef] 245. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P. Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 159, 62–75. [CrossRef] 246. Baptiste, A.K.; Foley, C.; Smardon, R. Understanding urban neighborhood differences in willingness to implement green infrastructure measures: A case study of Syracuse, NY. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 136, 1–12. [CrossRef] 247. García-Sánchez, F.; Solecki, W.D.; Batalla, C.R. Climate change adaptation in Europe and the United States: A comparative approach to urban green spaces in Bilbao and New York City. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 164–173. [CrossRef] 248. Donovan, G.H.; Butry, D.T. The value of shade: Estimating the effect of urban trees on summertime electricity use. Energy Build. 2009, 41, 662–668. [CrossRef] 249. Goddard, M.A.; Dougill, A.J.; Benton, T.G. Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 25, 90–98. [CrossRef][PubMed] 250. Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ. Pollut. 2002, 116, 381–389. [CrossRef][PubMed] 251. Escobedo, F.J.; Nowak, D.J. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 90, 102–110. [CrossRef] 252. Kabisch, N.; Qureshi, S.; Haase, D. Human-environment interactions in urban green spaces—A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015, 50, 25–34. [CrossRef] 253. Peters, K.; Elands, B.; Buijs, A. Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 93–100. [CrossRef] 254. Refshauge, A.D.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Cosco, N.G. Adults’ motivation for bringing their children to park playgrounds. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 396–405. [CrossRef] 255. Artmann, M.; Chen, X.; Lojă, C.; Hof, A.; Onose, D.; Poni˙zy, L.; Breuste, J. The role of urban green spaces in care facilities for elderly people across European cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 27, 203–213. [CrossRef] 256. Gascon, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Martínez, D.; Dadvand, P.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Plasència, A. Residential green spaces and mortality: A systematic review. Environ. Int. 2016, 86, 60–67. [CrossRef][PubMed] 257. Tamosiunas, A.; Grazuleviciene, R.; Luksiene, D.; Dedele, A.; Reklaitiene, R.; Baceviciene, M. Accessibility and use of urban green spaces, and cardio-vascular health: Findings from a Kaunas cohort study. Environ. Health 2014, 13, 20. [CrossRef][PubMed] 258. Annerstedt, M.; Ostergren, P.-O.; Bjork, J.; Grahn, P.; Skarback, E.; Wahrborg, P. Green qualities in the neighbourhood and mental health results from a longitudinal cohort study in Southern Sweden. Bmc Public Health 2012, 12, 337. [CrossRef] 259. Rigolon, A. A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 153, 160–169. [CrossRef] 260. Kohout, M.; Kopp, J. Green space ideas and practices in European cities. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020, 1–20. [CrossRef] 261. Dai, D. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 102, 234–244. [CrossRef] 262. Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 4445 36 of 36

263. Nesbitt, L.; Meitner, M.J.; Girling, C.; Sheppard, S.R.; Lu, Y. Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 181, 51–79. [CrossRef] 264. Checker, M. Wiped out by the “greenwave”: Environmental gentrification and the paradoxical politics of urban sustainability. City Soc. 2011, 23, 210–229. [CrossRef] 265. Nesbitt, L.; Meitner, M.J. Exploring relationships between socioeconomic background and urban greenery in Portland, OR. Forests 2016, 7, 162. [CrossRef] 266. Jennings, V.; Johnson-Gaither, C.; Gragg, R.S. Promoting environmentaljustice through urban green space access: A synopsis. Environ. Justice 2012, 5, 1–7. [CrossRef] 267. Anguelovski, I.; Connolly, J.J.; Garcia-Lamarca, M.; Cole, H.; Pearsall, H. New scholarly pathways on green gentrification: What does the urban ‘green turn’mean and where is it going? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2019, 43, 1064–1086. [CrossRef] 268. Immergluck, D.; Balan, T. Sustainable for whom? Green urban development, environmental gentrification, and the Atlanta Beltline. Urban Geogr. 2018, 39, 546–562. [CrossRef] 269. Rigolon, A.; Németh, J. “We’re not in the business of housing:” Environmental gentrification and the nonprofitization of green infrastructure projects. Cities 2018, 81, 71–80. [CrossRef] 270. Curran, W.; Hamilton, T. Just green enough: Contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Local Environ. 2012, 17, 1027–1042. [CrossRef] 271. Quastel, N. Political ecologies of gentrification. Urban Geogr. 2009, 30, 694–725. [CrossRef] 272. Eckerd, A. Cleaning up without clearing out? A spatial assessment of environmental gentrification. Urban Aff. Rev. 2011, 47, 31–59. [CrossRef] 273. Dale, A.; Newman, L.L. Sustainable development for some: Green urban development and affordability. Local Environ. 2009, 14, 669–681. [CrossRef] 274. Fuller, R.A.; Gaston, K.J. The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biol. Lett. 2009, 5, 352–355. [CrossRef] 275. A Typology of Urban Green Spaces, Ecosystem Provisioning Services and Demands. Copenhagen: Green Surge, University of Copenhagen. Available online: https://greensurge.eu/working-packages/wp3/ (accessed on 11 May 2020). 276. Kabisch, N.; Strohbach, M.; Haase, D.; Kronenberg, J. Urban green space availability in European cities. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 70, 586–596. [CrossRef] 277. Anguelovski, I.; Connolly, J.J.; Masip, L.; Pearsall, H. Assessing green gentrification in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: A longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geogr. 2018, 39, 458–491. [CrossRef] 278. Kabisch, N.; Haase, D. Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 122, 129–139. [CrossRef] 279. Goossens, C.; Oosterlynck, S.; Bradt, L. Livable streets? Green gentrification and the displacement of longtime residents in Ghent, Belgium. Urban Geogr. 2019, 1–23. [CrossRef] 280. Levin-Keitel, M.; Mölders, T.; Othengrafen, F.; Ibendorf, J. Sustainability transitions and the spatial interface: Developing conceptual perspectives. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1880. [CrossRef] 281. Ernst, L.; de Graaf-Van Dinther, R.E.; Peek, G.J.; Loorbach, D.A. Sustainable urban transformation and sustainability transitions; conceptual framework and case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2988–2999. [CrossRef] 282. Nevens, F.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gorissen, L.; Loorbach, D. Urban Transition Labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 50, 111–122. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).