Land-use planning in urban areas
Land-use planning influences the way cities are constructed and will develop further over time. It defines the "Five Ds" of a city, of which the first three are the most studied in terms of impact on travel behaviour: density (of population and/or jobs), diversity (mix of uses), design (pedestrian quality, street network density, etc), distance to transit and destination. Public authorities can choose to promote different types of local development, the two extremes being urban sprawl (whereby density, diversity, design for walkable environments, transit access and destination access are low) and compact city development (whereby all the criteria are high). Compact city developments are in favour of low-carbon transport.
Land-use planning will have different environmental impacts depending on the urban form and dynamics of the metropolitan area. Compact city developments are generally thought to reduce urban-transport-related emissions by decreasing travel distances and car dependency, while increasing the use of active travel modes (walking and cycling) and public transport. Although evidence supports this in many cases, the effectiveness of land-use planning policies that increase urban density in order to decrease CO2 emissions depends on the characteristics of the urban area in question. Studies analysing the relationships between a main city and its sub-urban centres, such as Paris and the Val-de-Marne agglomeration, have found that increasing the density in the sub-urban centres is not necessarily the most effective way of reducing GHG emissions from commuting in this area. Rather, improving the public transport connectivity of this centre (so that it is easier for commuters to access) can be more effective.
In all cases, land-use planning policies should complement transport policies – as is the case with transit-oriented development (TOD), which aims to densify urban areas and produce mixed-used developments built around public transport stops. Attention should, however, be given to the possible equity effects of these measures, as TODs in other scenarios have also been associated with increased land values around stations, which make impacted areas less suitable for low-income residents to live in.
Cities with already high densities can invest in rail transit to manage urban growth by extending lines into less-developed areas to steer urban expansion. This will also facilitate commutes to city centres and possibly reduce excessive suburban sprawl.
Land-use planning can have a significant impact on transport demand, and related emissions, in cities. In general, higher-density areas with a greater mix of uses and a street network design that favours alternative transport modes reduce transport demand and related CO2 emissions.
Doubling the residential density across a metropolitan area can lower households' transport demand by about 5–12%. If coupled with high employment concentrations, mixed uses, and other supportive demand management measures, transport demand can be decreased by up to 25%. In the US, it was found that a 1% increase in population density leads to a 0.213% reduction in vehicle-kilometres travelled.
Compact urban development can reduce opportunity costs for local governments to invest in (public) transport infrastructure and maintenance, as denser areas require, on average, smaller transport networks.
Compact land-use planning reduces vehicle-kilometres travelled and thereby air pollution stemming from the use of vehicles. Compact cities favour the use of alternative modes of transport and increase the accessibility of destinations (e.g. jobs, education, health care) in a city.
For certain policies (for instance those linked to TOD), potential equity effects could be found in the eviction of low-income residents due to increases in land prices.
ITF (2021) Transport Climate Action Directory – Land-use planning in urban areas
https://www.itf-oecd.org/policy/land-use-planning-urban-areas
ITF (2021), Reversing Car Dependency: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports, No. 181, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Aguilera and Voisin (2014) Urban form, commuting patterns and CO2 emissions: What differences between the municipality's residents and its jobs? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.07.012
Babalik-Sutcliffe (2013) Urban Form and Sustainable Transport: Lessons from the Ankara Case. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2012.676152
Baur, A.H., Förster, M. and Kleinschmit, B. (2015) The spatial dimension of urban greenhouse gas emissions: analyzing the influence of spatial structures and LULC patterns in European cities. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0169-5
Bonin and Tomasoni (2015) Evaluation of a transit-oriented development scenario in a medium-sized French city by simulation models. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijt.2015.3.1.07
Boussauw and Witlox (2009) Introducing a commute-energy performance index for Flanders. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2009.02.005
Burgalassi and Luzzati (2015) Urban spatial structure and environmental emissions: A survey of the literature and some empirical evidence for Italian NUTS 3 regions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.07.008
Cervero (1996) Mixed land-uses and commuting evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 30, Issue 5, September 1996, Pages 361-377 https://doi.org/10.1016/0965-8564(95)00033-X
Cervero (2002) Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 7, Issue 4, June 2002, Pages 265-284 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(01)00024-4
Cervero and Radisch (1996) Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods. https://doi.org/10.1016/0967-070X(96)00016-9
Cervero et al. (2009)'Influences of Built Environments on Walking and Cycling: Lessons from Bogotá, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 3:4, 203 — 226. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568310802178314
Croci et al. (2013) Determinants of GHG emissions from urban ground transportation: review on a sample of European cities. http://www.isecoeco.org/conferences/isee2012-versao3/pdf/565.pdf
Duranton and Turner (2015) Urban form and driving: Evidence from US cities Preliminary and incomplete. https://www.brown.edu/academics/economics/sites/brown.edu.academics.economics/files/uploads/Turner%20-%20Urban%20form%20and%20driving.pdf
Etminani-Ghasrodashti and Ardeshiri (2016) The impacts of built environment on home-based work and non-work trips: An empirical study from Iran. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.01.013
Ewing et al. (2007) Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate change. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cit_07092401a.pdf
Ewing, R. And Cervero, R. (2010) Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/travelbuiltenvironment20100511.pdf
Handy, S., Cao, X. and Mokhtarian, P. (2005) Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2005.05.002
Kamruzzaman et al. (2015) Commuting mode choice in transit oriented development: Disentangling the effects of competitive neighbourhoods, travel attitudes, and self-selection. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.06.003
Kennedy et al. (2009) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Cities. Environmental Science & Technology 2009 43 (19), 7297-7302. https://doi.org/10.1021/es900213p
McKibbin (2011) The influence of the built environment on mode choice – evidence from the journey to work in Sydney. http://atrf.info/papers/2011/2011_McKibbin.pdf
Muñiz, Calatayud and Dobaño (2013) The compensation hypothesis in Barcelona measured through the ecological footprint of mobility and housing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.004
Næss, P., Sandberg S.L. and R⊘e, P.G. (1996) Energy use for transportation in 22 Nordic towns, Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 13:2, 79-97, DOI: 10.1080/02815739608730401
Schlosser (2010) Compact Urban Development and reduction of Motorized travel, energy use and CO2 emissions, presentation at the. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_pdfs/meetings2010/egm0310/presentation_Schlosser.pdf
Schwanen, T., Dijst, M. and Dieleman, F.M. (2004) Policies for Urban Form and their Impact on Travel: The Netherlands Experience. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000178690
Shammin, Md. R., Herendeen, R.A., Hanson, M.J. and Wilson, E.J.H. (2010) A multivariate analysis of the energy intensity of sprawl versus compact living in the U.S. for 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.003
Song, S., Diao, M. and Feng, C-C. (2016) Individual transport emissions and the built environment: A structural equation modelling approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 92, October 2016, Pages 206-219 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.08.005
Taniguchi M., Matsunaka, R. and Nakamichi, K. (2008) A time-series analysis of the relationship between urban layout and automobile reliance: have cities shifted to integration of land use and transport? https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/UT08/UT08041FU1.pdf
Zhang, Y., Wu, W., Li, Y. and Liu, Q. (2014) Does the Built Environment Make a Difference? An Investigation of Household Vehicle Use in Zhongshan Metropolitan Area, China. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269764730_Does_the_Built_Environment_Make_a_Difference_An_Investigation_of_Household_Vehicle_Use_in_Zhongshan_Metropolitan_Area_China
Zhao, P., de Roo, G. and Lu, B. (2009) Planning for low-carbon urban growth: the impact of urban form on transport and the environment on the urban fringe of Beijing. http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1391.pdf
Printer-friendly version