Berghauser Pont, M; Haupt, P; Berg, P; Alstäde, V and Heyman, A (2021) Systematic review and comparison of densification effects and planning motivations. Buildings & Cities, 2(1), pp. 378-401. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Do higher urban densities contribute to more sustainable cities and communities? This paper examines the effectiveness of higher density (as a means) for achieving sustainable urban development (the goal) following three lines of enquiry. First, a systematic review of the scientific literature (n = 229 peer-reviewed empirical studies) is presented on the effects of urban density. Second, the motivations for increasing urban density are studied in a systematic review of Swedish planning practices based on the comprehensive urban plans in 59 municipalities. Third, these two studies are compared to find matches and mismatches between evidence and practice. Although positive effects exist for public infrastructure, transport and economics, there are also considerable negative environmental, social and health impacts. This creates a challenging task for urban planners to assess the trade-offs involving densification and accommodate current urbanisation rates. Some topics are found to be over-represented in research (transport effects), seldom discussed in practice (environmental impact), and misaligned when comparing motives and evidence (social impact). Furthermore, for some topics, urban density thresholds are found that are important because they may explain some of the divergences in the results between studies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cities; densification; planners; sustainable urban development; systematic review; urban density; urban planning; Sweden |
| Index terms: | mismatch, systematic literature review, Sweden, urban planning, motivation, empirical study, motive, planner, public infrastructure, social impact, sustainable urban development, urbanization, sustainable city, urban density, densification, density, effectiveness, environmental impact, municipality, evidence |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, evaluation and assessment methods, engineering problems, urban design, sustainability and resilience, research methods, profession, environmental impact, sociology, administrative law, urban planning, infrastructure and transport systems, Geography, research evaluation and metrics, performance management, psychology |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Research Practice, Human Resources, Quality Management, Geographical Context, Governance, Urban Studies, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here