In the United Kingdom planning favours a more compact, high-density, and mixed-use urban form. Many of the claims made for such compact forms in terms of the sustainability benefits are contested, and few have been rigorously researched. Drawing upon policy and academic literature we identify two key dimensions of social sustainability: social equity and sustainability of community. Using data from the Survey of English Housing this paper analyses the relationship between key aspects of urban form, density, and housing type, and selected social sustainability outcomes. Simpler analyses suggest strong relationships between urban form and a range of outcomes, although in opposite directions for the equity and community dimensions. However, the impact of urban form on these outcomes is substantially modified once we control for exogenous and intervening demographic and socioeconomic factors. In addition, outcome patterns relating to access to services and facilities favour denser urban forms at the same time as outcomes relating to sustainability of community remain adverse in denser areas. This suggests trade-offs within the social dimensions of sustainability, as well as between the social, environmental, and economic dimensions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonRFlintJ, 2003, “Locating the local in informal processes of social control: The defended neighbourhood and informal crime management”, CNR Paper 10, School of Policy Studies, Centre for Neighbourhood Research, Bristol University
2.
AudiracIZifouM, 1989Urban Development Issues: What is Controversial in Urban Sprawl? An Annotated Bibliography of Often Overlooked SourcesBureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
3.
BaileyNLivingstoneM, 2007, “Population turnover and area deprivation”, research report to Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Garden House, Water End, York
4.
BartonH, (Ed.), 2000Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-neighbourhoods (Earthscan, London)
5.
BramleyGMorganJ, 2003, “Building competitiveness and cohesion: The role of new house building in central Scotland's cities”Housing Studies18447–471
6.
BramleyGPawsonHThirdH, 2000Low Demand Housing and Unpopular NeighbourhoodsDepartment of Environment, Transport and the Regions, London
7.
BramleyGBrownCDempseyNPowerS, 2007, “Social sustainability and urban form: Measuring and calibrating the relationship”, paper presented at Planning Research Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, April; available from the author
8.
BrehenyM, 1992aSustainable Development and Urban Form (Pion, London)
9.
BrehenyM, 1992b, “The contradictions of the compact city: A review”, in Sustainable Development and Urban Form (Pion, London) pp 138–159
10.
BridgeG, 2002, “The neighbourhood and social networks”, CNR Paper 4, School of Policy Studies, Centre for Neighbourhood Research, Bristol University
11.
BunkerR, 1985, “Urban consolidation and Australian cities”Built Environment1183–96
12.
BurtonE, 2000a, “The compact city: Just or just compact? A preliminary analysis”Urban Studies371969–2001
13.
BurtonE, 2000b, “The potential of the compact city for promoting social equity”, in Achieving Sustainable Urban Form Eds WilliamsKBurtonLJenksM (Spon, London) pp 19–29
14.
BurtonE, 2003, “Housing for an urban renaissance: Implications for social equity”Housing Studies18537–562
15.
CalthorpeP, 1993The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream (Princeton Architectural Press, New York)
16.
CEC, 1990Green Paper on the Urban EnvironmentCommission of the European Communities, Brussels
CollieM, 1990, “The case for urban consolidation”Australian Planner2826–33
19.
DCLG, 2006State of the English Cities Research Summary 21, Department for Communities and Local Government, London
20.
DETR, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London
21.
DETR, 1997Indicators of Sustainable Development
22.
DETR, 1999aA Better Quality of Life
23.
DETR, 1999bTowards an Urban Renaissance—Final Report of the Urban Task Force (Spon, London)
24.
DETR, 2001Achieving a Better Quality of Life: Review of Progress Towards Sustainable Development, Government Annual Report 2000 (HMSO, London)
25.
DiamondH LNoonanP F, 1996Land Use in America (Island Press, Washington, DC)
26.
DuanyAPlater-ZyberkE, 2001Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (North Point Press, San Francisco, CA)
27.
ElkinTMcLarenDHillmanM, 1991Reviving the City: Towards Sustainable Urban Development (Friends of the Earth, London)
28.
EwingR, 1997, “Is Los Angeles style sprawl desirable?”Journal of the American Planning Association63107–126
29.
FisherTBramleyG, 2006, “Poverty and local services”, in Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain Eds PantazisCGordonDLevitasR (Policy Press, Bristol) pp 217–246
30.
ForrestRKearnsA, 2001, “Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood”Urban Studies382125–2143
31.
FreemanL, 2001, “The effects of sprawl on neighbourhood social ties”Journal of the American Planning Association6769–77
32.
GlynnT, 1981, “Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application”Human Relations34789–818
33.
GordonPRichardsonH, 1997, “Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?”Journal of the American Planning Association6395–106
GovernmentH M, 2005Securing the Future Cm 6467 (The Stationery Office, London)
36.
HillsJLe GrandJPiachaudD, 2002Understanding Social Exclusion (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
37.
HirschfieldABowersK, 1997, “The effects of social cohesion on levels of recorded crime in disadvantaged areas”Urban Studies341275–1295
38.
JenksMBurtonEWilliamsK, (Eds), 1996The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form (Spon, London)
39.
KatzP, 1994The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community (McGraw-Hill, New York)
40.
KearnsAForrestR, 2000, “Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance”Urban Studies37995–1017
41.
NasarJJulianD, 1995, “The psychological sense of community in the neighbourhood”Journal of the American Planning Association61178–184
42.
NelessenA C, 1994Visions for a New American Dream: Process, Principles and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Urban Communities (American Planning Association, Chicago, IL)
43.
ODPM, 2003Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (The Stationery Office, London)
44.
ODPM, 2004Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime PreventionOffice of the Deputy Prime Minister, London
45.
PantazisCGordonDLevitasR, 2006Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain (Policy Press, Bristol)
46.
PiersonJ, 2002Tackling Social Exclusion (Routledge, London)
47.
PoleseMStrenR, 2000The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and Management of Change (University of Toronto Press, Toronto)
48.
PowerAMumfordK, 1999The Slow Death of Great Cities? Urban Abandonment or Urban RenaissanceJoseph Rowntree Foundation (York Publishing Services, York)
49.
ShaftoeH, 2000, “Community safety and actual neighbourhoods”, in Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-neighbourhoods Ed. BartonH (Earthscan, London) chapter 15
50.
SherlockH, 1990Cities are Good for Us: The Case for Close Knit Communities, Local Shops and Public Transport (Paladin, London)
51.
ShoreW B, 1995, “‘Recentralization’: The single answer to more than a dozen United States problems and a major answer to poverty”Journal of the American Planning Association61496–503
52.
SimmelG, 1995, “The metropolis and mental life”, in Metropolis: Center and Symbol of our Times Ed. KasnitzP (Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants) pp 30–45
53.
TalenE, 1999, “Sense of community and neighbourhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism”Urban Studies361361–1379
54.
Transit Cooperative Research Program, 1998, “The costs of sprawl revisited”, report 39, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC
WilliamsK, 2000, “Does intensifying cities make them more sustainable”, in Achieving Sustainable Urban Forms Eds WilliamsKBurtonLJenksM (Spon, London) pp 30–45
57.
WirthL, 1938, “Urbanism as a way of life”American Journal of Sociology441–24
58.
WooleverC, 1992, “A contextual approach to neighbourhood attachment”Urban Studies2999–116
59.
World Commission on Environmental Development, 1987Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
60.
YiftachelOHedgcockD, 1993, “Urban social sustainability: The planning of an Australian city”Cities10139–157
