Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
matter in determining the level of energy consumption in urban areas. This
view is based on theory and empirical studies advocating that planning is
an important instrument for promoting sustainable development.
2.3.1.1 Compact versus Dispersed Development
When it comes to land-use characteristics that influence energy use for every-
day transport, Næss concludes that the following characteristics are favour-
able for reducing energy use per capita: high population density for the city
as a whole; high density within each residential area; centralised settlement
within cities and towns (i.e. higher density in the inner part than on the
fringe); centralised workplace location; low parking capacity at workplaces;
decentralised concentration at the regional level; and a high population for
each cit y [11,18].
The main principle in the compact city theory is high-density development
close to or within the city core with a mixture of housing, workplaces and
shops. This implies densely and concentrated housing development, which
favours semidetached and multifamily housing. Under this theory, devel-
opment of residential housing areas on (or beyond) the urban fringe, and
single-family housing in particular, are banned. Furthermore, central, high-
density development supports a number of other attributes that are favour-
able to sustainable energy use: low energy use for housing and everyday
travel, efficient remote heating/cooling systems, proximity to a variety of
workplaces and public and private services, as well as a highly developed
public transport system.
The supporters of the compact city theory [19-24] believe that the compact
city has environmental and energy advantages, as well as social benefits.
The list of advantages is remarkably long, including a better environment,
affordable public transport, the potential for improving the social mix and a
higher quality of life [25]. However, the main justification for the compact city
is that it results in the least energy-intensive activity pattern, thereby helping
us cope with the issues of global warming. The supporters of the dispersed
city suggest that the green city—that is, a more open type of urban structure,
where buildings, fields and other green areas form a mosaic-like pattern [11,18].
The list of arguments against the compact city theory is even longer than
the list in support of it and includes: that it rejects suburban and semi-
rural living, neglects rural communities, affords less green and open space,
increases congestion and segregation, reduces environmental quality and
lessens the power for making local decisions [11,25].
However, until fairly recently, an international consensus favouring the
compact city as a sustainable development approach has dominated the
debate [26]. Although there has always been considerable scepticism, the con-
cept of the compact city has been so dominant that it seems inconceivable
that anyone would oppose the current tide of opinion towards promoting
greater sustainable development and the compact city in particular [27].
