{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03230148048452221, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.305084745762712, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Collective Versus Individual Gain of “Natural Sprawl”

In response to the “natural sprawl” article by Okulicz-Kozaryn, I present a critical reflection on the assumption of studying the city in relation to individual and not collective gains. Okulicz-Kozaryn’s article on “natural sprawl” presents us with a reasonable argument on the benefits of natural sprawl on an individual’s happiness. This response re-visits some of the critical limitations of urban sprawl that are missing from Okulicz-Kozaryn’s “natural sprawl” argument. This response holds that an emphasis on “natural sprawl” and expansion of suburban areas, although it may produce increased happiness to the few, can also result in stratification along social and economic lines.