This study is an attempt to develop an internationally applicable compact city index that measures the performance of physical urban forms with regard to compact city policies. Based on key characteristics of the compact city that are high density, mixed land-use, and public transport systems, we formulate a new index called ‘compact city index’ (CCI) to assess urban compactness of populations, facilities and amenities centred on public transport systems at both community and city levels. Then sensitivity analyses follow simulating different scenarios varying hypothetical urban forms to check a dominant bias to specific variables in the CCI equation. Finally four types of CCI, in different measurements of time and distance, are applied to 41 middle-sized Japanese cities. It is found that cities can achieve urban compactness in the time aspect by utilisation of well-networked public transport systems, even though physical urban forms of those cities are largely sprawled.
AlbertiM (2000) Urban form and ecosystem dynamics: Empirical evidence and practical implications. In: WilliamsKBurtonEJenksM (eds) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form. London: E & FN Spon, pp. 84–96.
2.
BanisterD (1992) Energy use, transport and settlement patterns. In: BrehenyMJ (ed.) Sustainable Development and Urban Form. London: Pion, pp. 160–181.
3.
BernickMCerveroR (1997) Transit Villages for the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
BertaudAMalpezziS (1999) The spatial distribution of population in 35 world cities: The role of markets, planning and topography. Working paper, Center for Urban Land Economics Research, University of Wisconsin, WI, USA.
5.
BoarnetMCraneR (1997) LA story: A reality check for transit-based housing. Journal of the American Planning Association63(2): 189–204.
6.
BramleyGDempseyNPowerS. (2009) Social sustainability and urban form: Evidence from five British cities. Environment and Planning A41(9): 2125–2142.
7.
BrehenyM (1995) The compact city and transport energy consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers20(1): 81–101.
8.
BurtonE (2000) The compact city: Just or just compact? A preliminary analysis. Urban Studies37(11): 1969–2006.
9.
BurtonE (2002) Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities. Environment and Planning B29(2): 219–250.
10.
CalthorpeP (1993) The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Communities, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
11.
CarlP (2000) Urban density and block metabolism. In: SteemersKYannasS (eds) Architecture, city, environment: Proceedings of PLEA 2000. Cambridge, 2–5 July 2000. London: James & James, pp. 343–347.
12.
CerveroR (2001) Efficient urbanisation: Economic performance and the shape of the metropolis. Urban Studies38(10): 1651–1671.
13.
ChurchmanA (1999) Disentangling the concept of density. Journal of Planning Literature13(4): 389–411.
14.
DantzigGBSaatyTL (1973) Compact City: A Plan for a Liveable Urban Environment. San Francisco: WH Freeman.
15.
ElkinTMclarenDHillmanM (1991) Reviving the City: Towards Sustainable Urban Development. London: Friends of the Earth.
16.
EwingRPendallRChenD (2002) Measuring Sprawl and its Impact. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America.
17.
FanYKhattakARodríguezD (2011) Household excess travel and neighbourhood characteristics: Associations and trade-offs. Urban Studies48(6): 1235–1253.
18.
GalsterGHansonRRatcliffeMR. (2001) Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate12(4): 681–717.
19.
GordonPRichardsonHW (1997) Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?Journal of the American Planning Association63(1): 95–106.
20.
HaughtonGHunterC (1994) Sustainable Cities. New York: Routledge.
21.
HaughtonGHunterC (2003) Sustainable Cities (rev ed). New York: Routledge.
22.
HeathT (2001) Revitalizing cities: Attitudes toward city-center living in the United Kingdom. Journal of Planning Education and Research20(4): 464–475.
23.
HoldenENorlandIT (2005) Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable urban form: Household consumption of energy and transport in eight residential areas in the Greater Oslo region. Urban Studies42(12): 2145–2166.
24.
JabareenYR (2006) Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research26(1): 38–52.
25.
JacobsJ (1961) The Death And Life Of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
26.
KiiMDoiK (2005) Multiagent land-use and transport model for the policy evaluation of a compact city. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32(4): 485–504.
27.
LiangS (2009) Research on the urban influence domains in China. International Journal of Geographical Information Science23(12): 1527–1539.
28.
LinJ-JYangA-T (2006) Does the compact-city paradigm foster sustainability? An empirical study in Taiwan. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33(3): 365–380.
29.
MinsterC (2010) Tackling obesity by urban planning? Recent research and a European case study. Built Environment36(4): 415–428.
30.
NæssP (2013) Urban form, sustainability and health: The case of Greater Oslo. European Planning Studies. Epub ahead of print 14 June 2013. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2013.797383.
31.
NeumanM (2005) The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research25(1): 11–26.
32.
NewmanP (1992) The compact city: An Australian perspective. Built Environment18(4): 285–300.
33.
NewmanP (1994) Urban design, transportation and greenhouse. In: SamuelsRPrasadDK (eds) Global Warming and the Built Environment. London: E & FN Spon, pp. 69–84.
34.
NewmanPKenworthyJ (1989) Gasoline consumption and cities: A comparison of US cities with a global survey. Journal of the American Planning Association55(1): 24–37.
35.
NewmanPKenworthyJ (1999) Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Washington, DC: Island Press.
36.
OECD (2012) Compact City Policies: A Comparative Assessment. OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing.
37.
PaulsonB (1997) Toward global sustainable community: A view from Wisconsin. In: YamaguchiK (ed.) Sustainable Global Communities in the Information Age: Visions from Futures Studies. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 103–113.
38.
SherlockH (1991) Cities Are Good for Us. London: Paladin.
39.
SmallKASongS (1992) ‘Wasteful’ commuting: A resolution. Journal of Political Economy100(4): 888–898.
40.
TakedaHShibataMArimaT (2011) City ranking and evaluation using compact city indexes. Journal of Architecture and Planning76(661): 601–607 (in Japanese).
41.
ThinhNXArltGHeberB. (2002) Evaluation of urban land-use structures with a view to sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review22(5): 475–492.
42.
ThomasLCousinsW (1996) A new compact city form: Concepts in practice. In: JenksMBurtonKWilliamsK (eds) The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?Oxford: E & FN Spon, pp. 328–338.
43.
ThorneRFilmer-SankeyW (2003) Transportation. In: ThomasR (ed.) Sustainable Urban Design: An Environmental Approach. London: Spon Press, pp. 25–32.
44.
TsouKHungYChangY (2005) An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial equity in urban public facilities. Cities22(6): 424–435.
45.
VanU-PSeniorM (2000) The contribution of mixed land uses to sustainable travel in cities. In: WilliamsKBurtonEJenksM (eds) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form. London: E & FN Spon, pp. 139–148.
46.
Van den BergLBraunEvan der MeerJ (eds) (2007) National Policy Responses to Urban Challenges in Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.
47.
Van der RynSCalthorpeP (1986) Sustainable Communities: A New Design Synthesis for Cities, Suburbs, and Towns. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
48.
WesterinkJHaaseDBauerA. (2013) Dealing with sustainability trade-offs of the compact city in peri-urban planning across European city regions. European Planning Studies21(4): 473–497.
