 also had at least 40 percent of their population in unincorporated areas. Research has suggested that these areas may be susceptible to problems associated with urban sprawl, as the number of local governments presents a challenge for comprehensive, regional land use planning efforts. This is compounded by the paucity of local land use regulations in unincorporated areas, which can exacerbate the outward expansion of urban development (Carruthers, 2003). Areas where such conditions exist vary greatly in population size, ranging from about half a million (Harrisburg, PA), to more than 5 million (Philadelphia). With the exceptions of Atlanta and Washington, these areas are mainly located in the Northeast and Midwest, where many states have multilateral annexation policies that inhibit the ability of large cities to expand their boundaries (Rusk, 2006).
The aggregate findings are generally consistent with data published in the previous study conducted by Census Bureau staff on annexation between 1990 and 2000 (Johnson et al., 2004). Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas with the largest percentages of their populations living inside incorporated places tended to be located in the Midwest and West regions, while areas with lower percentages tended to be located in the Northeast and South. The proportion of population living inside incorporated places in aggregate was higher in metropolitan statistical areas, lower in micropolitan statistical areas, and lowest in areas outside CBSAs. Areas typically associated with urban sprawl (e.g., Atlanta) were often found to have higher percentages of their populations living in unincorporated areas, as well as higher numbers of governmental units.
Future research needs include an examination of more recent population trends inside and outside incorporated places using the latest intercensal population estimates, as well as an analysis of the change over time of the distribution of the incorporated place population within metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. Also, an exploration of data on the distribution of population inside principal cities versus other incorporated places could provide additional insights on the extent of political fragmentation within each metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area. Finally, a statistical exploration (e.g., regression analysis) of the potentially explanatory relationship between the number of governmental units, the percent of population in unincorporated areas, and conditions associated with urban sprawl may prove interesting, provided an acceptable quantitative measure of sprawl can be reached.
Carruthers, J., 2003, “Growth at the fringe: The influence of political fragmentation in United States metropolitan areas.” Papers in Regional Science, v.82, 475-499.
Johnson, R., Perry, M., and Lollock, L., 2004, “Annexation and Population Growth in American Cities, 1990-2000” in The Municipal Yearbook 2004. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
Palmer, J., and Lindsey, G., 2001, “Classifying State Approaches to Annexation.” State and Local Government Review, v.33, n.1, 60-73.
Rusk, D., 1993. Cities Without Suburbs. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Rusk, D., 2006. Annexation and the Fiscal Fate of Cities. Internet report. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
Accessed October, 2006.
U.S. Census Bureau, 1994, Geographic Areas Reference Manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2003, Bulletin No. 03-04: “Revised Definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, New Definitions of Micropolitan Statistical Areas and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Statistical Definitions of These Areas.”
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2004, Bulletin No. 04-03: “Update of Statistical Area Definitions and Additional Guidance on Their Uses.”U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2005, Bulletin No. 05-02: “Update of Statistical Area Definitions and Guidance on Their Uses.”