The paradox of intensification

Urban intensification as part of a smart growth strategy can facilitate low-energy transport modes and reduce overall car use, with benefits to the global environment, but evidence suggests the effect will be less than proportional. Hence, in locations where intensification occurs, greater concentrations of traffic tend to occur, and this worsens local environmental conditions. This phenomenon is defined below as the 'paradox of intensification'. The consequent challenges for planners and policymakers, which arise, are considered. The analysis suggests that a compromise involving limited intensification would merely redistribute the balance between the two sets of problems: global and local. It is concluded that urban intensification should be accompanied by more radical measures to constrain traffic generation within intensified areas.

[1]  Xiaoduan Sun,et al.  Household Travel, Household Characteristics, and Land Use: An Empirical Study from the 1994 Portland Activity-Based Travel Survey , 1998 .

[2]  Ralph Buehler,et al.  Sustainable Transport that Works: Lessons from Germany , 2009 .

[3]  Michael Breheny,et al.  Urban compaction: feasible and acceptable? , 1997 .

[4]  S. Melia,et al.  Potential for Carfree Development in the UK , 2011 .

[5]  Petter Næss.  Residential Self‐Selection and Appropriate Control Variables in Land Use: Travel Studies , 2009 .

[6]  Jeffrey Kenworthy,et al.  The ten myths of automobile dependence , 2000 .

[7]  THE PARADOX,et al.  The paradox , 1982, Medical History.

[8]  G. Giuliano,et al.  Another Look at Travel Patterns and Urban Form: The US and Great Britain , 2003 .

[9]  Patricia L. Mokhtarian,et al.  What Affects Commute Mode Choice: Neighborhood Physical Structure or Preferences Toward Neighborhoods? , 2005 .

[10]  T. Litman,et al.  Land Use Impacts on Transport , 2005 .

[11]  D. Stead.  Relationships between Land Use, Socioeconomic Factors, and Travel Patterns in Britain , 2001 .

[12]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California , 2005 .

[13]  Harry W. Richardson,et al.  Critiquing Sprawl''s Critics , 2000 .

[14]  Donald Appleyard,et al.  Livable Streets: Protected Neighborhoods? , 1980 .

[15]  Matthew E. Kahn,et al.  Sprawl and Urban Growth , 2003 .

[16]  Marcus Grant,et al.  Shaping Neighbourhoods: For Local Health and Global Sustainability , 2002 .

[17]  D. Schrank,et al.  2001 Urban Mobility Report , 2001 .

[18]  S. Jebb,et al.  Foresight. Tackling obesities: future choices. Project report. , 2007 .

[19]  Jeffrey Kenworthy,et al.  Cities and Automobile Dependence: A Sourcebook , 1989 .

[20]  Ming Zhang.  The Role of Land Use in Travel Mode Choice: Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong , 2004 .

[21]  J Hart,et al.  Driven to excess - impacts of motor vehicle traffic on residential quality of life in Bristol, UK , 2008 .

[22]  R. Ewing,et al.  Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change , 2008 .

[23]  N Humphrey,et al.  Driving and the built environment: the effect of compact development on motorized travel, energy use, and CO2 emissions , 2010 .

[24]  M. Dijst,et al.  Policies for Urban Form and their Impact on Travel: The Netherlands Experience , 2004 .

[25]  M. Jun.  Are Portland's Smart Growth Policies Related to Reduced Automobile Dependence? , 2008 .

[26]  Jose A Gomez-Ibanez,et al.  TRB Special Report: Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions , 2010 .

[27]  Ahmed M El-Geneidy,et al.  Perceptions of Walking Distance to Neighborhood Retail and Other Public Services , 2008 .

[28]  Y. Susilo,et al.  The influence of built environment to the trends in commuting journeys in the Netherlands , 2007 .

[29]  D. Brownstone,et al.  The Impact of Residential Density on Vehicle Usage and Energy Consumption , 2005 .