How smart is smart growth? Examining the environmental validation behind city compaction
Smart growth (SG) is widely adopted by planners and policy makers as an environmentally friendly way of building cities. In this paper, we analyze the environmental validity of the SG-approach based on a review of the scientific literature. We found a lack of proof of environmental gains, in combination with a great inconsistency in the measurements of different SG attributes. We found that a surprisingly limited number of studies have actually examined the environmental rationales behind SG, with 34% of those studies displaying negative environmental outcomes of SG. Based on the insights from the review, we propose that research within this context must first be founded in more advanced and consistent knowledge of geographic and spatial analyses. Second, it needs to a greater degree be based on a system’s understanding of urban processes. Third, it needs to aim at making cities more resilient, e.g., against climate-change effects.
KeywordsCity compaction City densification Environmentally friendly urban development Smart growth Sustainable urban development
This work was funded by The Stockholm County Council and Stockholm University, Sweden, and the FORMAS project: “Analysing city-densification from an ecological resilience perspective.”
- Ahlfeldt, G., and E. Pietrostefani. 2017. The effects of compact urban form. A qualitative and quantitative evidence review. London: Coalition for Urban Transitions. Retrieved May 2018, from http://newclimateeconomy.net/content/cities-working-papers.
- Alcamo, J., and S.A. Leonard. 2012. 21 issues for the 21st century—Result of the UNEP foresight process on emerging environmental issues. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).Google Scholar
- Alexander, E.R. 1993. Density measures: A review and analysis. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 10: 181–202.Google Scholar
- Angel, S., A.M. Blei, J. Parent, P. Lamson-Hall, N. Galarza Sánchez, D.L. Civco, R. Qian Lei, and K. Thom. 2016. Atlas of urban expansion—2016 edition volume 1. Areas and densities. Cambridge, MA: NYU Urban Expansion Program at New York University, UN-Habitat, and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
- Baskin, Y. 1998. The work of nature: How the diversity of life sustains us. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Berghauser-Pont, M., and P. Haupt. 2010. Spacematrix. Rotterdam, Holland: NAI Publishers.Google Scholar
- Berghauser-Pont, M., and L. Marcus. 2014. Innovations in measuring density. From area and location density to accessible and perceived density. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research 2: 11–30.Google Scholar
- Berghauser-Pont, M., K. Ahrné, Å. Gren, A. Kaczorowska, and L. Marcus. 2018. Integrating visibility graph analysis (VGA) with connectivity analysis in landscape ecology. In Proceedings of the 11th Space Syntax Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, #157.Google Scholar
- Calthorp, P. 1993. The next American metropolus. Ecology, community and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
- Costanza, R., and H. Daily. 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology 6: 37–46. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0888-8892%28199203%296%3A1%3C37%3ANCASD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M.
- Daily, G. 1997. Natural services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems, 412. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- De Jong, T., and D.J.M. van der Voordt (eds.). 2002. Ways to study and research urban, architectural and technical design. Delft: Delft University Press.Google Scholar
- EPA. 2017. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 2017, from https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth.
- European Commission. 2002. Directive 2002/49/EC. Retrieved June 2018, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2002/49/oj.
- European Commission. 2013. The Green Paper—A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies. Retrieved October 7, 2017, from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/publication/GP_EN_web.pdf.
- Fernandez Per, A., and J. Mozas. 2004. Densidad/density (a + t ediciones, Vitoria-Gasteiz).Google Scholar
- Forsyth, A. 2003. Measuring density. Working definitions for residential density and building density. Design Brief 8. Minneapolis: Design Center for American Urban Landscape, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
- Frumkin, H., L. Frank, and R.J. Jackson. 2004. Urban sprawl and public health. Designing, planning, and building for healthy communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Garland, L. 2016. The case for high-density compact cities. Bulletin of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Inpractice 92: 32–35.Google Scholar
- Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-679-60047-7.Google Scholar
- Jansson, Å., and S. Polasky. 2010. Quantifying biodiversity for building resilience for food security in urban landscapes. Getting down to business. Ecology and Society 15: 20. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art20/.
- Litman, T. 2009. Where we want to be. Home location preferences and their implications for smart growth. Victoria: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved May 2018, from www.vtpi.org/sgcp.pdf.
- Liu, Y., Y. Song, and H.P. Arp. 2012. Examination of the relationship between urban form and urban eco-efficiency in China. Habitat International 36: 171e177.Google Scholar
- MA. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Newman, P., and J. Kenworthy. 1989. Cities and automobile dependence. Aldershot: Gower Publications.Google Scholar
- Openshaw, S., and P.J. Taylor. 1979. A million or so correlation coefficients. Three experiments on the modifiable areal unit problem. In Statistical applications in spatial sciences, ed. N. Wrigley, 127–144. London: Pion.Google Scholar
- Pachauri, R.K., and L.A. Meyer. 2014. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report—Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- Stange, E., D.N. Barton, and G.M. Rusch. 2018a. A closer look at Norway’s natural capital—How enhancing urban pollination promotes cultural ecosystem services in Oslo. In Reconnecting natural and cultural capital, ed. M.L. Paracchini, P.C. Zingari, and C. Blasi, 235–243. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
- UN-Habitat. 2012. Leveraging density. Urban patterns for a green economy. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. ISBN 978-92-1-132463-1.Google Scholar
- United Nations. 2014. World urbanization prospects—The 2014 revision, highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.Google Scholar
- WWF. 2017. How many species are we loosing? Retrieved 2017, from http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/.
- Zetterberg, A. 2011. Connecting the dots: Network analysis, landscape ecology and practical applications. PhD thesis. Stockholm, Sweden: KTH-Environmental Management and Assessment Research Group Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). ISBN 978-91-7501-198-1.Google Scholar