Skip to main content

How smart is smart growth? Examining the environmental validation behind city compaction

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 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.

  2. 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 

  3. Alexander, E.R. 1993. Density measures: A review and analysis. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 10: 181–202.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Almanza, E., M. Jerrett, G. Dunton, E. Seto, and M.A. Pentz. 2012. A study of community design, greenness and physical activity in children using satellite. GPS and accelerometer data. Health Place 18: 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. Baskin, Y. 1998. The work of nature: How the diversity of life sustains us. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berghauser-Pont, M., and P. Haupt. 2010. Spacematrix. Rotterdam, Holland: NAI Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. 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.

  10. Biermann, F., X. Bai, N. Bondre, W. Broadgate, C.-T.A. Chen, O.P. Dube, J.W. Erisman, et al. 2016. Down to earth: Conceptualizing the anthropocene. Global Environmental Change 39: 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Blanco, H., M. Alberti, A. Forsyth, K.J. Krizek, D.A. Rodríguez, E. Talen, and C. Ellis. 2009. Hot, congested, crowded and diverse. Emerging research agendas in planning. Progress in Planning 71: 153–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Buys, L., and E. Miller. 2012. Residential satisfaction in inner urban higher-density Brisbane, Australia. Role of dwelling design, neighbourhood and neighbours. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55: 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.597592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Calthorp, P. 1993. The next American metropolus. Ecology, community and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cao, X., P.L. Mokhtarian, and S.L. Handy. 2009. Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour. A focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews 29: 359–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cervero, R., and K. Kockelman. 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds. Density, diversity and design. Transportation Research D 2: 199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Colding, J. 2007. Ecological land-use complementation’ for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 81: 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Colding, J. 2011. The role of ecosystem services in contemporary urban planning. In Urban ecology: Patterns, processes and applications, ed. J. Niemelä, J.H. Breuste, T. Elmqvist, G. Guntenspergen, P. James, and N.E. McIntyre, 228–237. Oxford, UK: OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Colding, J., and S. Barthel. 2017. An urban ecology critique on the “Smart City” model. Journal of Cleaner Production. 164: 95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Concepción, E.D., M. Moretti, F. Altermatt, M.P. Nobis, and M.K. Obrist. 2015. Impacts of urbanisation on biodiversity. The role of species mobility, degree of specialization and spatial scale. Oikos 124: 1571–1582. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

  21. Daily, G. 1997. Natural services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems, 412. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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 

  23. DeVos, J.M., L.N. Joppa, J.L. Gittleman, P.R. Stephens, and S.L. Pimm. 2015. Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction. Conservation Biology 29: 452–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. EPA. 2017. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 2017, from https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth.

  25. European Commission. 2002. Directive 2002/49/EC. Retrieved June 2018, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2002/49/oj.

  26. 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.

  27. Ewing, R., T. Schmid, R. Killingsworth, A. Zlot, and S. Raudenbush. 2003. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. American Journal of Health Promotion 18: 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fernandez Per, A., and J. Mozas. 2004. Densidad/density (a + t ediciones, Vitoria-Gasteiz).

  29. Figueres, C., H.J. Schellnhuber, G. Whiteman, J. Rockström, A. Hobley, and S. Rahmstorf. 2017. Three years to safeguard our climate. Nature 546: 593–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/546593a.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

  31. 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 

  32. 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 

  33. Haase, D., N. Kabisch, and A. Haase. 2013. Endless urban growth? On the mismatch of population, household and urban land area growth and its effects on the urban debate. PLoS ONE 8: e66531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066531.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Handy, S. 2005. Smart growth and transport-land use connection. International Regional Science Review 28: 146–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hartig, T., R. Mitchell, S. de Vries, and H. Frumkin. 2014. Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health 35: 207–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Holden, E., and K. Linnerud. 2011. Troublesome leisure travel. Urban Studies 48: 3087–3106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hough, M. 2004. Cities and natural processes. A basis for sustainability, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Howley, P. 2010. Sustainability versus liveability. An exploration of central city housing satisfaction. International Journal of Housing Policy 10: 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2010.480857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-679-60047-7.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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/.

  41. Lau, S.S.Y., F. Yang, J. Tai, X.L. Wu, and J. Wang. 2011. The study of summer-time heat island, built form and fabric in a densely built urban environment in compact Chinese cities. Hong Kong, Guangzhou. International Journal of Sustainable Development 14: 30–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

  43. 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 

  44. MA. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. McDonald, R.I., R.T.T. Forman, and P. Kareiva. 2010. Open space loss and land inequality in United States’ cities, 1990–2000. PLoS ONE 5: e9509. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009509.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Newman, P., and J. Kenworthy. 1989. Cities and automobile dependence. Aldershot: Gower Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 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 

  48. 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.

  49. Pauleit, S., and Y. Golding. 2005. The spatial impact of urban compaction. A fine-scale investigation based on Merseyside. Town Planning Review 76: 143–166. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.76.2.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pauleit, S., R. Ennos, and Y. Golding. 2005. Modeling the environmental impacts of urban land use and land cover change. A study in Merseyside, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 71: 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F.S. Chapin III, E.F. Lambin, T.M. Lenton, et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–475.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Salvati, L., M. Munafo, V.G. Morelli, and A. Sabbi. 2012. Low-density settlements and land use changes in a mediterranean urban region. Landscape and Urban Planning 105: 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Seto, K.C., B. Guneralp, and L.R. Hutyra. 2012. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109: 16083–16088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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 

  55. Stange, E., G. Zulian, G.M. Rusch, D.N. Barton, and M. Nowel. 2018b. Ecosystem services mapping for municipal policy: ESTIMAP and zoning for urban beekeeping. One Ecosystem 2: e14014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Stone Jr., B. 2008. Urban sprawl and air quality in large US cities. Journal of Environmental Management 86: 688–698.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Stone, B., and M.O. Rodgers. 2001. Urban form and thermal efficiency. How the design of cities influences the urban heat island effect. Journal of the American Planning Association 67: 186–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Stone, B., A. Mednick, T. Holloway, and S. Spak. 2007. Is compact growth good for air quality? Journal of American Planning Association 73: 404–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Stone, B., J.J. Hess, and H. Frumkin. 2010. Urban form and extreme heat events. Are sprawling cities more vulnerable to climate change than compact cities? Environmental Health Perspective 118: 1425–1428. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. UN-Habitat. 2012. Leveraging density. Urban patterns for a green economy. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. ISBN 978-92-1-132463-1.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  62. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., C. Rosenzweig, R. Dawson, R. Sanchez-Rodriguez, X. Bai, A.S. Barau, K.C. Seto, and S. Dhakal. 2018. Locking in positive climate responses in cities. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0100-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Van Der Waals, J.F.M. 2000. The compact city and the environment. A review. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 91: 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. WWF. 2017. How many species are we loosing? Retrieved 2017, from http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/.

  65. Ye, L., S. Mandpe, and P.B. Meyer. 2005. What is smart growth—Really? Journal of Planning Literature 19: 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 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.

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.”

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Åsa Gren.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 43 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gren, Å., Colding, J., Berghauser-Pont, M. et al. How smart is smart growth? Examining the environmental validation behind city compaction. Ambio 48, 580–589 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1087-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • City compaction
  • City densification
  • Environmentally friendly urban development
  • Smart growth
  • Sustainable urban development