In most cases, homes in suburbs take up more space than compared to homes in cities. Suburbs have loosely packed structures; therefore, suburbs tend to need more transportation, sewer lines, power lines, and roads when compared to cities. There is no doubt that suburbs are less energy efficient and sustain ecosystems at a reduced amount than cities. Therefore, increasing suburbs could mean that people’s ecological footprint is increased as they develop new suburbs. In the article, “Hyper Development- Nothing to Do Urban Planning in Toronto’s In-between City” by Douglas Young, he claims that less ecological sustainability within suburbs (Young 4). This claim is supported by Brugmann’s comments, “New homes were located ever farther away from employment areas, increasing their owners’ mobility cost. As a result, households had to increase the size of their automobile fleets.” Although, there are many factors that influence the increasing ecological sustainability in the suburbs, transportation is the one of the main factors that increases ecological footprints. In most cases within suburbs, distance to grocery stores or other facilities from home is not quite walkable, for example, in cities because the towns are structured very far from one another. Therefore, people need whichever transportation to move from one place to another, and people living in the suburbs typically choose to drive their own cars instead of using public transportation. This is problematic in the suburbs, and in Canada’s ecological sustainability. This is because, according to statistics by Canadian environment, if one person travels 20km in a day by driving a car, it will associate the ecological footprint by 0.51 hectares, but if a person uses public transportation, one can decrease the ecological footprint by 0.49 hectares (Statistics Canada 3).
Since I am currently living in Oakville, and it is one of the suburbs with high ecological footprint, I am going