Missing the forest through the trees? Comment on Reid Ewing and Fang Rong's “the impact of urban form on U.S. residential energy use”

This article critically evaluates Ewing and Rong's analysis, which suggests that low‐density, single‐family housing is more energy intensive than higher‐density development and thus justifies more stringent antisprawl growth controls. While the empirical analysis is fundamentally sound, the data and methods that were used do not justify the conclusions. Four primary weaknesses in the analysis are the focus of this article: the unfortunate tendency to nest the work in environmental alarmism; the failure to recognize the importance of choice and the trade‐offs implicit in policy recommendations; the failure to consider the ways innovation and technological change influence energy consumption and the choice of policy tools; and the failure to recognize market‐based alternatives, particularly energy pricing reforms, that might more directly influence energy conservation. Low‐density, single‐family housing may in fact be consistent with policies that promote energy conservation and may spur innovations that improve energy efficiency and alternatives.