Quantifying the Sustainability, Livability, and Equity Performance of Urban and Suburban Places in California

For years, researchers and practitioners have worked toward measuring urban form, but a gap still remains in the research to quantify how urban and suburban place-types affect economic, social, and environmental outcomes at small geographic scales. To provide such analysis, this paper describes the development of a place typology and sustainability performance measurement framework for all census tracts in California. This study found there were clear trade-offs between urban and suburban living. Compared with suburbs, the households in urban places benefited from a 57.9% reduction in annual vehicle miles traveled, 37.2% lower transport-related greenhouse gas emissions per capita, and saved more than US$2,675 in annual transportation costs, while consuming less electricity (39.9%) and water per capita (63.8%). However, the cost of urban homeownership was 40% higher, despite rents being 18.5% cheaper. And although obesity and cardiovascular disease rates were 10.3% and 8.9% lower in urban places, asthma rates were 7.5% higher. From 1970 to 2015, urban housing decreased from 34% to 21%, whereas statewide it dropped 7.5%. Despite ambitious climate action and smart growth goals, the majority of growth in California continues to be in low-density suburban/rural areas, responsible for 80% of the state's total household carbon emissions. This analysis and place typology could prove useful in identifying areas with the highest potential for lowering vehicle miles traveled and other sustainability, livability, and equity goals. This is made even more significant given California's recent move to abolish level of service analysis for traffic impact studies.