HIGH URBAN DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?

High Urban Densities in Developing

Countries: A Sustainable Solution?
SEEMA DAVE

High-density developments are widely claimed to make an important contribution

to achieving sustainable growth of cities in developed countries. The compact city
model is claimed to be a suitable model for such cities. How far the high-density
compact city model is relevant for sustainable urban growth in cities in developing
countries which already have higher densities than those in developed countries is
as yet unknown. This paper contributes to this theoretical debate with empirical
evidence from eleven neighbourhoods of varying densities and built form patterns
within the Mumbai Metropolitan Region in India. In so doing, the critical aspects
of social, economic and environmental sustainability as well as both physical and
perceived dimensions of densities are discussed within the particular context of
Mumbai. Evidence from this research suggests that higher densities and compact
developments do have potential to achieve sustainable development in rapidly
growing cities in developing countries.

Higher-density developments are widely (Rapoport, 1977). Therefore urban com-

claimed to provide the solution to achieving
sustainable growth of cities in developed
countries (CEC, 1990; Williams et al., 1996).
Among many suggested sustainable urban
forms for developed countries, the high-
density, compact development or compact
city is argued by many to be the most
suitable model. As a result of rapid growth,
many cities in Asia are facing many urban
challenges including severe housing and in-
frastructure shortages and growing numbers
of squatter settlements within the city. These
problems are exacerbated by the physical
scale and continuously growing urban
sprawl. Within this context, a key question
is posed: can the high-density compact city
model provide a sustainable solution to the
rapid urban growth of these cities which
already have a higher concentration of people
than cities in developed countries?
The density of human habitat is closely
intertwined with its society and culture
paction has to be tested for its cultural and
local appropriateness. Some theorists argue
that compact city models may not be relevant
in developing countries due to their very high
growth rates (population and urban areas),
cultural and climatic differences and different
mix of use patterns, leading to crowding and
congestion (Hardoy et al., 2000; Williams,
2004; Kaji, 2003). While these arguments
are based on considerable evidence, this
is largely focused on cities in developed
countries (Bae and Hee, 2004; Owens, 1991)
and there is limited study to establish the
relevance of compact urban forms and high-
density development in developing countries.
Such research as exists is related to a few
specific issues of sustainability and lacks a
comprehensive approach (Bertaud, 2004a; Yeh
and Li, 2000; Griesmayer, 1988). Therefore,
the relevance of high-density compact form
has remained untested in cities in developing
countries.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1 9

 THE COMPACT CITY REVISITED
The present research aims to address
this gap by developing empirical tests for
the theoretical claims about compact devel-
opments for developing countries. Mumbai,
the largest metropolis of India, was taken as a
case study and the impacts of urban densities
on the three main aspects of sustainability
social, economic, and environmental
were established using multiple indicators
(Dave, 2008). The theoretical background
and the concepts of social, economic and en-
vironmental sustainability as well as density
used in the research are described in the
next section. The methodology employed
in the research is explained, followed by the
presentation of the empirical findings. The
last section attempts to establish the validity
of high-density compact urban form in cities
of developing countries within the context of
existing knowledge, the empirical findings
and present urban policies.
Urban Development in Developing
Countries: Focus on Mumbai
Urban populations consume more energy,
produce more emissions per capita, and
use more natural resources than rural
populations. One of the main arguments
of the compact city model is that it reduces
urban consumption patterns by concentrating
urban development. Recent high economic
growth is reflected in rapid urbanization in
this region. The Asia-Pacific countries are
currently home to approximately 58 per cent
of the worlds population and 45 per cent of
the worlds urban population. Urbanization in
Asia has proceeded so rapidly that, between
1980 and 2002, the regions urban population
more than doubled, from 646 million to 1,333
million (UN ESCAP, 2005).
Such high urban population growth is
mainly due to economic progress, increased
employment opportunities, and the potential
for improved quality of life in urban areas.
There is a huge migration from surrounding
rural areas to the economically vibrant urban
centres, which has resulted in uncontrolled
10
and unplanned growth and expansion of
urban edges. Further, growth on the edge
of cities is not as compact as the old core of
the city; densities are often very low, with
uneven (leapfrog) patterns of development.
This creates a vicious circle: urban size is
again related to many problems caused
by lack of basic infrastructure including
transport networks and to issues of social
exclusion. The plight of the urban poor and
disparity of development benefits continues
to increase. Transport networking to the
edge areas becomes even more costly and
inefficient for these cities, which already
lack financial capacity. It is predicted that
in future there will be many Asia-Pacific
cities with populations of over 3040 million
(Department for International Development,
2006). Achieving sustainable patterns of devel-
opment (mono-centric or multi-centred) in
these cities is important and urban intensi-
fication and compaction may provide a
sustainable solution.
However, since the 19601970s in Mumbai,
as in many other Indian cities, urban devel-
opment policies were centred on reducing
built-up densities to avoid overcrowding by
adopting low-density development controls
and applying them uniformly across the city.
Low-density developments or sprawling
cities consume more land, causing the ex-
pansion of cities built-up boundaries. Such
forms have many negative impacts on sus-
tainability, which are widely discussed in
the literature (Bae and Hee, 2004; Newman
and Kenworthy, 1989), and are exacerbated
by the use of development control tools to
create low-density built forms (Alexander,
1993). In Mumbai and many other Indian
cities, Floor Space Index (FSI) is commonly
used in setting controls for the built form. FSI
has gained significance in Indian cities as it
is used to control the built volume, thereby
governing building activity over space, plot
by plot. It prescribes a maximum built-up
area on all floors taken together in relation
to the area of the plot (Lele, 1983). Mumbais
recent density policy allows a very low built-
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1
 HIGH URBAN DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?
up density range: an FSI of between 1 and
1.33 is permitted throughout the city and
for various land uses. In many large cities of
the world, FSI varies from 1 to 20 between
residential and CBD areas (Bertaud, 2004b).
This approach of promoting low built-up
densities while encouraging huge sprawling
cities is questionable when considering the
urban problems and challenges.
Looking at the growth and density patterns
of Mumbai, (table 1 and figure 1), it is clear
that although cities like Mumbai have higher
population densities than many cities in
developed countries, the overall form and
spatial patterns are not uniformly compact
(Dave, 2008). The main problem found in
the development of Mumbai is that there is
huge disparity between built form densities
and population densities. In other words,
the concentration of population densities is
higher in Mumbai and other such mega cities
(with populations of 10 million or more) in
India than their built up density. While a
difference between building and population
density is to be expected in most cities, the
huge differences in Mumbai are indicative of
the great disparity between economic groups.
In Mumbai the average population density is
389 persons/hectare, and per capita, available
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1
average living space is just 4.5 m2, which is
claimed to be the lowest in the world.
The National Commission on Urbanisation
(1988) reported that in Indian cities, 12.8 per
cent of the urban population lives in 0.9
per cent of the urban area, at densities in
excess of 500 p/ha. Among them, only 2.5
per cent lives at extremely high densities,
in excess of 1000 p/ha, on 0.1 per cent of
the urban area. However, 51.5 per cent of
the urban population lives at low densities
on 91 per cent of urban land, a little short
of 125 p/ha, while 32.6 per cent lives at very
low densities of 62.5 p/ha, in 80.3 per cent
of the urban area. This shows that overall,
Indian cities are not so densely populated
and compact as the city-scale statistics might
suggest. This also shows the magnitude of
densification potential in urban settlements
even in India. Although these are figures
from the late 1980s, they help to illustrate
the overall development patterns, and such
disparity in distribution of density still exists
in Indian cities. Generally speaking, old and
economic core areas of the cities are markedly
dense, and later additions on the peripheries
are often of medium to low density and often
reflect a lack of planning.
Figure 2 helps to explain how certain areas
Figure 1. Built up, land use and
density patterns of Mumbai.
(Source: Bertaud et al., 2003)
11
 THE COMPACT CITY REVISITED

Table 1. Cities in developed and developing countries: comparison of population densities.

Cities in Density Cities in Developing Density
Developed (central city) Countries (central city)
Countries persons/km2 persons/km2
London 1,667 Mexico 5,568
Sydney 2,001 Shanghai 10,358
Los Angeles 2,836 Delhi 11,050
Washington 3,566 Beijing 11,500
Moscow 8,418 Jakarta 14,084
New York 9,166 Buenos Aires 14,120
Osaka 12,430 Karachi 18,900
Tokyo 13,973 Mumbai (Greater) 22,677
Seoul 16,899 Kolkota 23,487
(Sources: based on Richardson et al., 2000; Williams, 2004; MMRDA, 1995; http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-
cities-population-250.html).

of cities in developing countries develop to understand the nature of urban densities

very high concentrations of population for
reasons other than culture or traditional
preferences. In many such cities, locational
advantages push market forces to opt for
intensely high residential ratios, increasing
the residential population densities of such
areas (National Commission on Urbanisation,
1988). To address such disparities, cities like
Mumbai would need more built-up space
to accommodate the large population in
adequate houses and to improve their quality
of life. It is claimed that high-density compact
cities can provide a solution to many of these
urban problems, but in the case of cities of
developing countries, there is an urgent
need to address this debate. It is important
while examining the relevance of high density
in cities of developing countries.
Urban Densities in Developing Countries
Certain dierences exist between cities in
developing1 and developed countries, re-
flected in the density patterns of these two
types. It is important to dierentiate between
them as the levels of suggested sustainable
densities and urban form may dier, as
will the associated impacts of such forms.
For example, the compact city is based on
the principles of intensifying use of space
within the city through higher residential
densities and centralization, mixed land

Figure 2. High density in cities of developing countries: forces and causes. (Source: adapted from
National Commission on Urbanisation, 1988, Vol. 5, p.53)

12 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1

 HIGH URBAN DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?
use, and controls on developments within
city limits (Churchman, 1999). While such
strategies are seen as appropriate for cities
in developed countries, they are contestable
for cities in developing countries. Examining
the dierences between population density
patterns, it is clear that cities in developing
countries, as observed in previous research
(Dave, 2008), face higher growth rates and
already have high population levels (table 1).
Many researchers argue that the compact
city or intensified city is not a concept
transferable to cities in developing countries
(Hardoy et al., 2000; Kaji, 2003; Williams,
2004). These cities already experience prob-
lems of high pollution, congestion, and lack
of infrastructure (Burgess, 2000). However,
these problems may reflect the failure of
urban planning, public transport services,
governance and management, or simply a
lack of finance. Indeed, the current level of
compaction itself may not be the cause of
the undesirable conditions in the cities of
developing countries.
Even in metropolises or mega cities, there
is scope to consider recycling or reusing
land for brownfield developments instead
of urban expansion on the periphery. For
example, in Mumbai, within the core area,
there is a large amount (600 acres or 245 ha)
of disused industrial land (Knight, 2003).
These brownfield sites, if developed, could
have a major impact on development by
providing more land within the core city.
The second significant difference between
cities in developing countries and those in
developed countries is their pattern of mixed
land use. Traditionally, cities in developing
countries have a greater mix of uses in their
highly concentrated developments. It is very
common to find commercial uses, religious
buildings, housing, and many other facilities
in a single street (Williams, 2004). This high-
density mixed-use model is claimed to be
sustainable in its support of communities in
relation to accessibility, compatible travel
patterns, and often generates local businesses,
when compared to single use areas. However,
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1
the former are criticized for creating con-
gestion, pollution and a poor quality of life
in many cases (Ibid.). But again, it would
be difficult to say that these problems are
directly due to density and higher mix of
uses.
The third difference between cities in
developed and developing countries is in
their socio-cultural patterns and climatic
conditions, and these may be responsible
for the high densities of cities in developing
countries. Climate is discussed in much
architectural research advocating the compact
built form (Correa, 1982; Turner, 2003). Such
densely developed places in hot-arid climates
consume less energy for cooling, by blocking
out strong sunshine and providing shade
to adjoining buildings, to the streets and
public places, and making spaces more
sociable (Correa, 1982). Above all, in many
instances these compact cities do not suffer
the so-called ill effects of higher densities,
perhaps due to unique socially homogeneous
patterns of grouping, i.e. maholla and poles
(traditionally compact neighbourhoods; in
many Indian cities there are good examples
of such settlements) (National Commission
on Urbanisation, 1988), social and cultural
acceptance of traditional high-density living
and high social bonds and social cohesion
allow them to accept the lack of privacy.
Extended families live in the same dwelling.
Developed cities in East Asian countries,
like Tokyo, Seoul and Osaka demonstrate
higher densities than London or New York,
reflecting cultural and traditional patterns
inherent in their urban patterns.
Density and Sustainable Development
To be described as sustainable, urban devel-
opment must support social conditions and
cohesion, encourage resource eciency and
economic sustainability, and provide a high
quality of life for all residents (Williams
and Dair, 2007). High-density development
remains at the centre of the debate on urban
form and its relation to social, cultural,
13
 THE COMPACT CITY REVISITED
economic and environmental sustainability.
Density can be described as a simple con-
cept, expressing how many buildings, how
much floor space, or how many people
are in a given piece of land (DETR, 1998).
However, its various measures and the
way it is perceived, arguably render it more
complex. Density has two main dimensions:
physical or real density and perceived
density. Physical density can be prescribed
or measured using number of buildings,
households or people within the given site.
A higher number of households or people
on a neighbourhood site may be beneficial
to certain aspects of sustainability, such
as optimum use of land, cost efficiency in
terms of construction, infrastructure lay-
out and energy consumption. But how
density is perceived by residents or users
(crowding of buildings or people) may have
significant impacts on social interaction,
community cohesion, satisfaction with the
built environment, the reputation of an
Figure 3. Locations of case studies within Mumbai Metropolitan Region.
14
area, and on preferences for moving in or
out of an area of a city. Thus perceptions of
density may affect the acceptable levels of
physical density and vary from individual to
individual depending on cultural preferences
and lifestyles in different places, cities and
countries (Churchman, 1999). These factors
can have significant impacts on policies
related to compaction and intensification
of urban areas (Breheny, 1997). Therefore,
both physical and perceived densities are
important for this research. It remains a
major problem for cities to decide how to
use density control tools to set an appropriate
density target to achieve sustainable devel-
opment. Improper use of these tools can
lead to serious environmental, economic
and social damage. Therefore, to examine
and establish their relationship to density
in the context of Mumbai, economic, social
and environmental indicators have been
developed in this study.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1
 HIGH URBAN DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?

Research methodology of density and the policies required to

Mumbai, the largest metropolis as well as
the financial capital of India, with topo-
graphical constraints (water on three sides,
as shown in figure 3), currently houses
12 million people (Census India, 2001). It
is estimated that the city will become the
second largest city in the world after Tokyo
by 2015 (United Nations, 1999). Mumbai
faces many of the urban challenges of other
cities in developing countries including land
shortages, insucient housing supply, in-
eective development policies, overstretched
transport facilities and a poor quality of life.
These problems also indicate the importance
control development in achieving sustainable
development. Thus, Mumbai is a good case
study within which to examine the rela-
tionship between density and social, eco-
nomic and environmental sustainability.
The broad question this research seeks to
answer is: Is high-density development a more
sustainable option for the future urban form
of cities in developing countries like India? To
address the main research question, the
following specific questions were posed:
1. Do densities have any impact on the
social, economic and environmental sustain-
ability of the neighbourhoods of Mumbai?

Table 2. Case study neighbourhoods, their location, selection criteria and survey response.
Location Age of Density Net Average Number
Neighbourhood and Form Household Family of
Density/ha Income Interviews
(Rs/month)
Artist Village Navi Mumbai, 1987 Low density, 68 5,00012,000 29
satellite town low rise
Dadar Parsi Dadar: Mumbai 19202002 Low density, 18 12,50025,000 28
colony Island low rise
Palm Acre Mulund: 19761981 Low density, 155 12,50025,000 20
Mumbai East medium rise
suburb
Hiranandani Powai: Mumbai 19922006 Low density, 26 25,000 and 12
Gardens East suburb high rise above
Pawai
Khotachiwadi Girgaum: 18031935 Medium 214 12,50025,000 29
Mumbai Island density, low rise
Ville Parle Mumbai West 196685 Medium 214 12,50025,000 30
suburb density,
medium rise
Cuffe Parade Mumbai Island 19701985 Medium 231 25,000 and 13
density, high above
rise
Bhoiwada Bhuleshwar: 19401950 High density, 588 5,00012,000 24
Bhuleshwar Mumbai Island low rise
Nana Chowk Mumbai Island 19302003 High density, 385 12,50025,000 11
medium rise
Satyam Shivam Mahim: Mumbai 2000 High density, 518 4,0005,000 27
Sundaram, West suburb high rise
Dharavi
Vashi Sec-1 Navi Mumbai, 1980 Low density, 146 5,00012,000 36
satellite town mixed form

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1 15

 THE COMPACT CITY REVISITED

2. If so, what is the nature of these impacts?
To address the research questions, eleven
neighbourhoods with differing densities and
built forms were examined. To find appro-
priate study areas within the Mumbai Metro-
politan Region, density guidelines given by
Mumbai Metropolitan Authority in their
draft development plan (MMRDA, 1995): low
density (up to 200 units p/ha), medium den-
sity (201400 units p/ha), and high density
(401600 units p/ha) in a range of low-,
medium- and high-rise neighbourhoods were
used as selection criteria. The levels of ex-
isting social, economic and environmental
conditions were assumed to be different in
different locations (central, middle, edge)
due to variations in their form and densities.
Therefore, within this range of density and
built form, to study various samples across
the city, small residential areas in different
locations were considered appropriate in
terms of scale to enable the evaluation and
comparison of the impact of different densi-
ties on sustainability. They were compared
using multiple indicators (figure 4). Table
2 and figure 3 explain the selected neigh-
bourhoods, their location and their selection
criteria.2
The physical and perceived density of a
given site or space is difficult to express with
a single measure. For example the number
of people or households per hectare does not
explain the physical form of the buildings;
hence multiple measures are required to give
a clearer picture of density (table 3).
As the studys focus was the impact of
density on aspects of sustainability, inter-
vening variables claimed to interact with
density and argued to influence aspects of sus-
tainability were identified: built form, mix of
uses, and socio-demographic characteristics
of a neighbourhood (Turner, 2003; Urban Task
Force, 1999). Care was taken to consider the
effects of these factors on the research which
are shown in figure 4 together with the
multiple indicators employed in the study to
measure social, economic and environmental
sustainability.
Data availability was the biggest challenge
in carrying out this research, as most of the
required data were not readily available;
hence most of the data were collected
through primary data collection that included
in-depth interviews, site observations and
physical site surveys. Interviews were con-
ducted with 259 residents in eleven case
study neighbourhoods. Statistical tests of
correlation, partial correlation and regression
were applied to the data using SPSS. The

Table 3. Measures of physical and perceived density.

Density measures List of Indicators Number of
Indicators
Physical Physical density: Net residential density (households/ha) 4
density measuring capacity Net residential population density (persons/ha)
and usage Average number of households/block
Floor area per person
Physical density: Coverage 2
measuring physical form Average number of floors per block
Perceived Measuring external Residents perception of their neighbourhood in 2
density crowding terms of space between buildings (measuring
crowding of buildings)
Residents perception of their neighbourhood in
terms of number of people (measuring crowding
of people)
Measuring internal Residents perception of their size of home 1
crowding (measuring crowding within dwelling)

16 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1

 HIGH URBAN DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?

Figure 4. Analytical process and research framework.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1 17

 THE COMPACT CITY REVISITED
relationship between density and aspects
of sustainability was examined individually.
Due to space constraints, summary research
findings only are discussed here. Further
details of statistical tests can be found in
Dave (2008).
Density and Sustainable Development:
Empirical Evidence
The following section addresses the two
sub-research questions. Do densities have
any impact on the social, economic and
environmental sustainability of the neigh-
bourhoods of Mumbai? And if they do, what
is the nature of these impacts?
Density and Social Sustainability
The relationship between density and social
sustainability of neighbourhoods was evalu-
ated using six key aspects: access to facilities
and amenities; amount of living space; health
of the inhabitants; community spirit and social
interaction; sense of safety; and satisfaction
with the neighbourhood. Table 4 shows that
overall, higher household densities3 [net
residential density (households/ha)] had
positive impacts on access to facilities and
amenities at the neighbourhood level. For
example, neighbourhoods like Bhuleshwar
(588 hh/ha) in the island core city were
found to have higher accessibility while
the low-density high-rise neighbourhood
of Hiranandani Gardens (26 hh/ha) had
the highest average distance to all the
facilities and amenities and the poorest
accessibility. Overall, both physical and
perceived densities are likely to aect the
amount of living space negatively. It was
found that in areas with higher residential
and population densities, neighbourhoods
provided less floor area per person and a
smaller amount of living space. Residents
who had perceived their neighbourhood
as crowded with buildings, also perceived
their amount of living space as insucient.
For example, Bhoiwada in Bhuleshwar,
18
which has the highest residential density
had the highest percentage of respondents
reporting that space between buildings was
insucient (71 per cent). Twenty-five per cent
of residents thought that their homes were
too small while in Hiranandani Gardens,
83 per cent of residents reported having
sucient space between buildings in their
neighbourhood. Higher physical density was
found to have a negative impact on the health
of the inhabitants (particularly stress-related
health) of the neighbourhood.
Net residential density was found to
have no impact on community spirit and
social interaction within the neighbourhood.
Only perceived density was found to have a
negative association with them. For example,
neighbourhoods with higher commercial use
(75 per cent as in Bhuleshwar) were found
to have negative effects on social interaction
and sense of safety. Developments with low
rise and higher coverage (for example 70
to 80 per cent as in Khotachiwadi), were
positively associated with social interaction
and community cohesion as well as with
sense of safety. Physical (net residential
density) density had no impacts on sense
of safety within the neighbourhood, while
perceived density (crowding of buildings
and people) was found to have a negative
relationship with sense of safety. Crowding
within a dwelling was also found to have
no relationship with indicators of sense of
safety. Both physical and perceived densities
were found likely to have an overall
negative impact on satisfaction with the
neighbourhood.
It was observable, while examining the
overall impacts of both physical and per-
ceived densities, that although density had
a negative relationship with most of the
examined aspects of social sustainability, by
and large, these effects are more related to
perceived density rather than physical. This
would suggest the intervening variables: built
form, layout, design and type of mix of uses
of a neighbourhood might have an important
role in achieving social sustainability.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1
 HIGH URBAN DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?

Table 4. Perceived and physical density impacts on social sustainability.

Social List of Indicators Physical Density Perceived density relationship Overall Impact of
Sustainability Relationship Density
(Neighbourhood
level net
residential Perceived
building and Perceived Density
population Neighbourhood within the
densities) Density Dwelling
Access to Average distances to social Positive Positive relationship:
facilities and facilities and amenities Denser neighbourhoods
amenities Number of schools, Positive are associated with
hospitals and open spaces better accessibility
and parks per 1000 people
Amount of living Floor area per person Negative Negative Negative relationship:
space (building and Denser neighbourhoods
people) are associated with less
Perceived level of Negative Negative residential living space
satisfaction with the size of (building)
home
Self reporting any outdoor No impact No impact
private spaces within the home
Health of the Number of family members Negative No impact No impact Negative relationship:
inhabitants having a stress related health Denser neighbourhoods
problem are associated with
Number of family members No impact No impact No impact more stress- or
having a pollution related pollution-related
health problem health problems
Number of family members Negative No impact No impact
having no health problem
Community spirit Perceived number of social No impact Negative Negative Negative relationship:
and social contacts (knowing people) (people) Residents in
interaction within the neighbourhood neighbourhoods
Perceived number of informal No impact No impact perceived to be
chatting with neighbours crowded reported
Self reported involvement in No impact Positive fewer social contacts
various community activities (building)
at various levels in the last
12 months
Perceived friendliness of the No impact No impact No impact
neighbourhood
Sense of safety Perceived safety within the No impact Negative Negative Negative relationship:
neighbourhood during (people) Residents in
daytime neighbourhoods
Perceived safety within the No impact No impact No impact perceived to be
neighbourhood after dark crowded reported
feelings of insecurity
and vandalism
Perceived vandalism in the No impact Negative (both Negative
neighbourhood building and
people)
Perceived reputation of the No impact No impact No impact
neighbourhood
Satisfaction with Perceived neighbourhood in No impact Negative No impact Negative relationship:
the neighbourhood terms of attractiveness (building) Residents in higher-
Architectural character Negative No impact No impact density
Well-maintained buildings Negative Negative (people) No impact neighbourhoods were

continued on p. 20

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1 19

 THE COMPACT CITY REVISITED

Table 4 continued

Social List of Indicators Physical Density Perceived density relationship Overall Impact of
Sustainability Relationship Density
(Neighbourhood
level net
residential Perceived
building and Perceived Density
population Neighbourhood within the
densities) Density Dwelling
Well-maintained outdoor areas No impact No impact No impact less satisfied with their
Well-maintained infrastructure No impact No impact Negative neighbourhood in
Parking facilities No impact No impact No impact terms of architectural
style, attractiveness,
appearance, noise
pollution, perceived
privacy, and overall
satisfaction
General appearance of the Negative Negative No impact
neighbourhood (building)
Quality of environment Negative No impact No impact
Cleanliness No impact No impact No impact
Measured intensity of noise Negative No impact No impact
within the area
Perceived problem of noise No impact Negative Negative
pollution within the (people)
neighbourhood
Perceived privacy within the No impact Negative No impact
neighbourhood (building)
Residents satisfaction with No impact Negative Negative
the neighbourhood as a (building)
place to live
Desire to move out of the No impact No impact No impact
present home

A statistically significant relationship was in neighbourhoods with smaller dwelling

found between lower perceived and actual
densities and the overall satisfaction and
desire to stay in the neighbourhood. It was
found in the preliminary correlations that
residents living in larger and less crowded
dwellings were more likely to want to stay
in their present home and neighbourhood.
Higher household densities apparently had
no significant impact on overall satisfaction
with the neighbourhood or desire to move out
or stay in the present home/neighbourhood.
Further, it was found that neighbourhoods
with larger dwelling sizes were perceived to
be more attractive, with good maintenance
of buildings and infrastructure and better
parking facilities. The general appearance
and quality of the environment, perceived
cleanliness and satisfaction with the neigh-
bourhood were all found to be higher than
sizes. The amount of floor space people have
in their home is clearly of greater importance
than neighbourhood level densities. To pro-
vide sufficient living space is not merely
an issue related to neighbourhood-level
densities, but may be more related to city-
wide or regional policies.
Density and Economic Sustainability
The relationship between density and
economic sustainability was evaluated using
three key aspects: employment opportunities;
aordability of houses; and cost-eective
infrastructure. The overall findings in table 5
show that higher net residential building and
population density are likely to have positive
impacts on employment opportunities. Find-
ings also indicated that high-density neigh-

20 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1

 HIGH URBAN DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?

bourhoods with higher commercial use may
oer more employment opportunities. Higher
residential building and population densities
are also likely to have positive impacts on
cost-eective infrastructure. Both higher
physical and perceived densities were found
to have a negative influence on aordability
of houses. This is the only aspect of economic
sustainability that was influenced negatively
by higher density. For economic aspects of
sustainability, higher physical densities, in
terms of higher household and population
densities, have overall positive eects, but
physical planning, built form and ecient
management also need to be taken into con-
sideration, to ensure aordability of housing.
Density and Environmental Sustainability
Air and water pollution, amount of open
spaces and parks, recycling of household
waste, opportunity for walking/cycling, and
public transport use were selected as indi-
cators of environmental sustainability. Table
6 shows that both higher physical and per-
ceived densities are likely to have a negative
relationship with air and water pollution.
Only the indicator of perceived crowding
of people within the neighbourhood was
found to have a negative relationship with
perceived trac congestion on the streets
of the neighbourhood. Higher commercial
activities create crowding and congestion
(as in the case of Bhuleshwar, which has
the highest residential density as well as
the highest commercial use). Higher house-
hold density was found to have a positive
impact on recycling of household waste.
A reason for this could be that waste
collectors are generally on foot and find it

Table 5. Impacts of density on economic sustainability.

Economic List of Indicators Physical Density Perceived density relationship Overall Impact of
Sustainability Relationship Density
(Neighbourhood
level net
residential Perceived
building and Perceived Density
population Neighbourhood within the
densities) Density Dwelling
Employment Percentage of employment/ Positive Positive relationship:
opportunities 1000 people Higher-density areas
Percentage of family members Negative are associated with
unemployed more employment
Percentage of family members No impact opportunities and
employed generally have lower
Percentage of family members No impact travel-to-work
self-employed distances
Percentage of family members No impact
informally self-employed
One way travel distance to Positive
work place
Affordability of House price to income ratio Negative No impact Negative relationship:
houses House rental to monthly Negative Negative Higher-density areas
income ratio are associated with
fewer affordable houses
Cost-effective Density of sewerage pipe per Positive Positive relationship:
infrastructure hectare Higher-density areas
Road area to number of Positive are associated with
households higher density of
sewerage pipes/ha and
less road infrastructure
per household

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1 21

 THE COMPACT CITY REVISITED

Table 6. Impacts of density on environmental sustainability.

Economic List of Indicators Physical Density Perceived Density Relationship Overall Impact of
Sustainability Relationship Density
(Neighbourhood
level net
residential Perceived
building and Perceived Density
population Neighbourhood within the
densities) Density Dwelling
Air and water Amount of SO2 in the air No impact Negative relationship:
pollution Amount of NO2 in the air Negative Higher-density areas
Amount of RSPM in the air Negative are associated with
Perceived traffic congestion Negative Negative problems of air
on the streets of the (people) pollution, traffic
neighbourhood congestion and
Perceived air-quality within Negative No impact perceived poor air
the neighbourhood quality.
Perceived quality of drinking No impact No impact
water within the
neighbourhood water supply
Amount of open Number of open spaces and No impact Positive relationship:
spaces and parks parks/1000 people Higher-density areas
Area of open space and parks Positive are associated with
to total area of the ward more open spaces and
Perceived satisfaction with Negative Negative Negative parks
the amount of open spaces (people) Negative relationship:
and parks Higher-density areas
are associated with less
satisfaction with the
amount of open spaces
and parks
Recycling of Percentage of residents of Positive No impact Positive relationship:
household waste the neighbourhood who sell Higher-density areas
various household waste for are associated with
recycling higher levels of
household waste
recycling
Opportunity for Percentage of people who Positive Positive Positive relationship:
walking/cycling walk for work trips Higher-density areas
and public Percentage of people who No impact No impact are associated with
transport use use public transport for more walking to work
work trips and shopping trips, and
Percentage of people who No impact No impact Positive more public transport
use public transport for use as proximity to
leisure trips transport nodes is
Percentage of people Positive Positive closer
who walk for daily use (building and No impact
shopping people)
Percentage of people who No impact
use public transport for
social visits
Average travel distance Positive
to nearest transport node
Self reported frequency of No impact
use of public transport
Perceived public transport No impact No impact Negative
service by their users

22 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1

 HIGH URBAN DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?
more convenient to attract business within
shorter distances (e.g. in Khotachiwadi)
rather than having to walk further in a lower
density neighbourhood such as Hiranandani
Gardens.
Interestingly, higher physical densities
were found to have an overall positive rela-
tionship with the area of open spaces and
parks, but perceptions of higher densities
were found to have a negative association
with the level of perceived satisfaction with
the area of open spaces and parks within
the locality. The research shows that, in
higher densities, a sufficient amount of
natural green open spaces and parks can
be maintained. For example, looking across
the eleven neighbourhoods, the core areas
(which were formally and better planned)
have more parks and green spaces, even
though neighbourhoods with the highest
densities are located in these areas. By
comparison, outer suburbs were left largely
unplanned and, hence, have fewer green
areas and parks. Findings related to the
amount of open spaces and parks make a
very important contribution at odds with
high-density compact city theory. It has
been widely believed that high-density areas
cannot offer or protect a sufficient quantity of
green and recreational space (Breheny, 1992)
due to economic pressure on land. But the
findings support the compact city claim that
green space can be provided and designed
in dense urban areas, indicating that physical
planning and policy decisions are more
important than density.
Finally, overall, higher physical and
perceived densities were positively associated
with indicators measuring opportunities for
walking/cycling and use of public transport.
In higher density neighbourhoods there are
shorter distances to public transport links,
which potentially encourages more public
transport use.
Overall, for environmental aspects of sus-
tainability, higher household and population
densities were found to have mostly posi-
tive impacts; any negative influences of den-
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1
sity were related to the perceptions of density
rather than to actual density. Land-use,
physical planning and built form are also
found to be important for environmental
sustainability. These findings related to
density, especially perceptions of density,
indicating that in higher density neigh-
bourhoods, positive impacts may be achieved
with appropriate design, layout and mix of
use patterns.
Discussion
The previous sections have provided a
broad theoretical discussion at macro level
of the relevance of high density in cities of
developing countries, supported by empirical
evidence at micro level from a selection
of Mumbai neighbourhoods. This section
addresses the main broad research question:
Is high-density development the most sustainable
model for cities in developing countries like
India?
The research findings reveal that higher
household densities are positively associated
with many aspects of sustainability if
managed carefully through the amount of
living space, design, layout, physical form,
amount of mix of uses and amenities/
facilities. Cities like Mumbai and many
other such cities in developing countries
have not been planned in a comprehensive
or sensitive way. Governments often lack the
vision and skill to control development and
gain the positive impacts of higher-density,
compact developments. There are many
examples of improper regulations and lack
of planning, as seen in the case of Mumbai,
and many cities in India, including land-use
control regulation, FSI, rent controls (frozen
in some areas since 1942), muddled property
taxations (with huge differences between
old and new property taxes), geographically
dispersed living and work locations and
huge uncontrolled rates of migration due to
ineffective economic development policies.
By reducing/controlling the built-up den-
sity to a great extent and not controlling
23
 THE COMPACT CITY REVISITED
urban migration from rural areas, policy-
makers create a mismatch between built up
and population densities. Density control
regulations, such as equally distributed low
FSI throughout the city, create shortages of
floor space within city limits, thus raising real
estate prices. As a result, average affordability
decreases and the poor are priced out of
favourable locations within the city or
they form illegal squatter settlements. The
existence of such illegal settlements is not due
to higher densities, but is caused by factors
such as those discussed above as well as
unemployment or low income. Unaffordable
house prices can lead to less living space per
person, negatively affect the overall quality
of life and unsustainable spatial growth and
patterns (Bertaud, 2004b; Nallathiga, 2004).
The results can be seen in the large slums in
Mumbai and low floor space per person in
some neighbourhoods.
A problem for many cities in developing
countries is that sustainability is not
properly defined even in theoretical terms
or at policy level. Hence the cities lack any
strategic direction for sustainable growth.
It is difficult to achieve sustainability in its
ideal condition; however, there should be
efforts to make cities less unsustainable as
far as possible. For example, 65 per cent
of Mumbais inhabitants live in slums,
which make it highly unsustainable and
fragmented in its current state, and it is not
creating desirable conditions for people to
live in. The findings of this research have
shown that higher household or population
densities have overall fewer negative impacts
than crowding within the dwelling. Many
negative impacts are related to perceptions
and hence bad design and layout of the
neighbourhood are negative effects of policy
rather than household densities.
Sustainability has to be considered within
a historical, social and cultural context.
Central areas of many Indian cities reflect
the history, tradition, culture, climate and
socio-economic patterns of the period in
which they developed. This pattern reminds
24
us that the compact city is not a new concept.
As discussed earlier, the built form found in
hot climates is generally compact, to avoid
heat penetration and to provide shadows on
the streets, making places naturally cool. The
built forms adopted based on these factors,
and on time-tested knowledge and past
experience, make them more sustainable.
While it is well known that lifestyles and
technology are changing globally, there is
arguably a need to maintain links to the
past while adopting changes, to retain the
integrity of the urban form and benefit from
centuries of experience.
Unfortunately the present seems to connect
to neither the past nor the future in cities of
developing countries. The race to win global
image, to achieve the status of world city and
to attract foreign investment has encouraged
them to adopt modern and gigantic urban
forms, while ignoring the unsustainability
of such forms, as well as not considering
the future direction of growth (Jenks, 2000).
Cities in developing countries lack vision
and planning. They also lack considered and
long-term policies and strategies, proper
land-use and infrastructure planning, urban
design, investment and efficient management.
There is a need to improve urban planning,
design and management and to attract more
investment while maintaining high-density
compact urban forms.
This research provides empirical evidence
from cities in the Indian context which
supports compact urban forms. Due to
the limitations of the research, it was not
possible to examine other cities in developing
countries, for which higher density and
compact form might have equal potential. But
the research has identified common problems
and issues in cities in developing countries.
It is, however, worth noting that between
different developing countries socially
acceptable space consumption and density
patterns as well as economic growth rates
and pace of development vary considerably.
It would therefore be inappropriate to
generalize this claim to other cities of
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1
 HIGH URBAN DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?
developing countries without considering
contextual influences and differences. But
looking at the environmental implications
of development e.g. resource consumption
and waste generation compact urban form
seems to have the potential for many cities
in developing countries. There is clearly
considerable scope for testing this through
further research.
Conclusion
This paper suggests that the high-density
compact city model has the potential to tackle
uncontrolled growth patterns and to achieve
sustainable urban form in Mumbai and other
Indian cities. It is evident that high density in
itself is not a problem in cities like Mumbai
and positive impacts can be achieved within
an area or a neighbourhood, if links between
built form, layout, design, minimum standard
of living space and culturally acceptable
amount of mix of uses are established. People
assess their home and neighbourhood by the
standards of public and private amenities
provided, and not by the density at which
they are built (TCPA, 2003) this study
shows that this relates to developing as well
as developed countries.
However, while higher densities may be
desirable, policies must take into account the
needs of different social groups. It would
be inappropriate to recommend increasing
densities only in low-income areas as is the
practice in Mumbai. Higher densities can be
delivered in many different forms and it is
important that these forms match the needs
and aspirations of residents, to deliver the
best possible quality of life.
It is important for policy-makers to avoid a
one policy fits all approach. There is clearly
a need to revise the existing regulations
related to density. For example, CBD areas
can be developed at higher than present
densities to reduce congestion and other
environmental problems by reducing journey
to work distances.
These findings are of increasing significance
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1
in addressing the serious contemporary issue
of urban growth in developing countries,
which is vital for global sustainability,
considering the Asia-Pacific regions growing
share in economic development and pop-
ulation size. Higher densities alone do not
provide the solution; land-use planning,
physical form, city size, layout, and other
socio-economic variables too are important.
There is also a need to look at urban growth
policies at regional and national levels to
tackle rural-urban migration in the complex
challenge of achieving sustainability in
rapidly growing cities.
NOTES
1. Before setting out the key discussion of this
section, it is important to define developing or
developed countries. For the purpose of this
research, developed countries are countries
defined as the thirty-five market-oriented countries
belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD). Developing
countries are the rest of the worlds 172 countries,
generally defined as having less than US$5000
Gross National Product per capita (Crump and
Ellwood, 1998 in Jenks, 2000a, p.4). This is a very
contested way of categorizing countries. Yet this
oversimplified definition has a reasonable basis
and has been accepted globally (Jenks, 2000). In
terms of this classification India is classified as a
low-income, developing country.
2. Further details on case study neighbourhoods
can be found in Dave (forthcoming 2010).
3. The research found similar relationships of net
residential (households/ha) and net population
(persons/ha) densities. Therefore, in this research,
findings mainly describe building densities in
terms of households/ha.
REFERENCES
Alexander, E.R. (1993) Density measures: a
review and analysis. Journal of Architectural and
Planning Research, 10, pp. 181202.
Bae, C. and Hee, C. (2004) Searching for Solutions
to Sprawl. Paper presented at the International
Planning Symposium on Incentives, Regula-
tions, and Plans The Role of States and
Nation-States in Smart Growth Planning.
25
 THE COMPACT CITY REVISITED
National Center for Smart Growth Research
and Education, University of Maryland Habi-
forum Foundation, The Netherlands Maryland
Department of Planning.
Barton, H., Davis, G. and Guise, R. (1995)
Sustainable Settlements: A Guide for Planners,
Designers and Developers. Bristol & Luton: Uni-
versity of the West of England & Local Gov-
ernment Management Board.
Bertaud, A. (1997) Measuring Constraints on Land
Supply: The Case of Hong Kong. Available at: http:
//alain-bertaud.com/images/HK_outline4.pdf.
Accessed 10 February 2010.
Bertaud, A. (2004a) The Spatial Organisation of Cities:
Deliberate Outcome or Unforeseen Consequence?
Available at: http://alain-bertaud.com/images/
AB_The_spatial_organization_of_cities_
Version_3.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2010.
Bertaud, A. (2004b) Mumbai FSI Conundrum: The
Perfect Storm: The Four Factors Restricting the
Construction of New Floor Space in Mumbai.
Available at: http://alain-bertaud.com: AB%20
Mumbai%20FAR%20conundrum.pdf. Accessed
10 Febrary 2010.
Bertraud, A., Buckley, R. and Owens, K. (2003)
Is Indian Urban Policy Impoverishing?
Washington DC: World Bank Urban Research
Symposium.
Breheny, M. (1992) The contradictions of the
compact city: a review, in Batey, P.W.J. (ed.)
Sustainable Development and Urban Form.
London: Pion.
Breheny, M. (1997) Urban compaction: feasible and
acceptable? Cities, 14, pp. 209217.
Burgess, R. (2000) The compact city debate: a
global perspective, in Jenks, M. and Burgess,
R. (eds.) Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms
for Developing Countries. London: Spon Press.
Census India (2001) Census Survey 2001. New
Delhi: Oce of the Registrar General and Cen-
sus Commissioner, India.
Churchman, A. (1999) Distangling the concept of
density. Journal of Planning Literature, 13, pp.
389411.
Commission for European Communities (CEC)
(1990) Green Paper on the Urban Environment.
Brussels: CEC.
Correa, C. (1982) Architecture in a warm climate.
MIMAR Architecture in Development, No. 5, pp.
3135.
Dave, S. (forthcoming 2010) Density perceptions
and neighbourhood sustainability in Mumbai.
Journal of Urban Development and Planning.
26
Dave, S. (2008) High Densities in Developing
Countries: A Sustainable Solution? PhD thesis
Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.
DETR. (1998) The Use of Density in Urban Planning.
London: HMSO.
Department for International Development (2006)
Asia 2015: Promoting Growth, Ending Poverty.
Paper presented at the conference Asia 2015:
Promoting growth, ending poverty. London.
Griesmayer, M. (1988) Economics of metropolitan
residential densities. Urban India, 8, pp. 872.
Hardoy, E., Mitlin, D. and Satterthwaite, D. (2000)
Environmental Problems in Third World Cities.
London: Earthscan.
Jenks, M. (2000) Sustainable urban form in
developing countries? in Jenks, M. and Burgess,
R. (eds.) Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Form
for Developing Countries. London: Spon Press.
Kaji, H. (2003) Compact City as a Sustainable Urban
Form: Is Compact City Approach Appropriate as an
Urban Development Policy to Cities in Developing
Countries? Keio: Policy Management, Keio
University.
Knight, F. (2003) Legislations and issues aecting
the operation of property markets in Mumbai.
The City, 1, pp. 2124.
Lele, M. D. (1983) Eect of Floor Space Index on
Infrastructure Cost. MSc thesis Ahmedabad,
Centre for Environment, Planning and Tech-
nology (CEPT).
MMRDA (1995) Draft Regional Plan for Bombay
Metropolitan Region 19962011. Bombay:
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development
Authority.
Nallathiga, R. (2004) An Evaluation of the Impact
of Density Regulation on Land Markets in
Mumbai. Paper presented at the 13th Inter-
national Conference of the American Real
Estate and Urban Economists Association.
Fredericton. New Brunswick, CA: Centre for
Property Studies, University of New Bruns-
wick.
National Commission on Urbanisation (1988)
National Commission on Urbanisation: Annual
Report. New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Aairs
of India.
Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1989) Gasoline
consumption and cities: a comparison of
US cities with a global survey. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 55, pp. 2437.
Owens, S. (1991) Energy-Conscious Planning: The
Case for Action. London: Council for the Pro-
tection of Rural England.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1
 HIGH URBAN DENSITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?
Rapoport, A. (1977) Human Aspects of Urban Form:
Towards a Man-Environment Approach to Urban
Form and Design. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Richardson, H., Bae, C. and Baxamusa, M. (2000)
Compact cities in developing countries:
assessment and implications, in Jenk, M. and
Burgess, R. (eds.) Compact Cities: Sustainable
Urban Forms for Developing Countries. London:
Spon Press.
Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA)
(2003) Residential Densities: TCPA Policy State-
ment. London: TCPA.
Turner, Lauren (2003) Climate and Architecture.
Report for Honors Section 8 of MET1010
Introduction to the Atmosphere, Florida State
University. Available at http://www.learn.lond
onmet.ac.uk/packages/clear/thermal/climate/
images/climate_and_architecture.pdf. Accessed
10 February 2010.
UN ESCAP (2005) Achieving Environmentally Sus-
tainable Economic Growth in Asia and Pacific. Fifth
Ministerial Conference on Environment and
Development in Asia and the Pacific, Seoul.
United Nations (1999) The State of World Population
1999. New York: United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA).
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1
Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban
Renaissance. London: Routledge.
Williams, K. (2004) Can Urban Intensification
Contribute to Sustainable Cities? An Inter-
national Perspective. Ocial Electronic Jour-
nal of Urbanicity: UN Habitat Partnership
Initiative.
Williams, K., Burton, E. and Jenks, M. (1996)
Achieving the compact city through intensi-
fication, in Jenks, M., Burton, E. and Williams,
K. (eds.) The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban
Form? Oxford: E & FN SPON.
Williams, K. and Dair, C. (2007) A framework
for assessing the sustainability of brownfield
developments. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 50, pp. 2340.
Yeh, A.G.O. and Li, X. (2000) The need for compact
development in the fast growing areas of
China: the Pearl River Delta, in Jenks, M. and
Burgess, R. (eds.) Compact Cities: Sustainable
Urban Forms for Developing Countries. London:
E & FN Spon.
27