Progress in Planning 76 (201 1) 1-61

Review
Clarifying and re-conceptualising density
Christopher T. Boyko *, Rachel Cooper
ImaginatwnLancastec Lancaster Institute for the ContemporaryArts, Lancaster University, Lancaster U 1 4 W United Kingdom

Abstract
As a spatial concept, density is a useful tool in predicting and controlling land use. However, policymakers, practitioners,
academics and citizens are often uncertain about how density, and especially higher densities, can be best utilised to create and
nurmre the design of urban environments. Barriers related to definitions, calculations, concepts and correlations with relevant
issues prevent people from understanding density beyond a simple ratio of units to area. More needs to be done to show
that density plays a key role in planning, architecture and urban design, and that discussions of density cannot be done in
isolation of a whole host issues found in the built and natural environment. To that end, this paper aims to clarify some of the
issues surrounding density, particularly about available definitions, calculating terns, the advantages and disadvantages of
increasing densities in cities and uncovering relationships between density and issues pertinent to the design of urban
environments. With these relationships in mind, a new way of visualising density is then offered-through a taxonomy of
density4hat categorises density into its component parts, allowing scholars, policymakers and practitioners to understand
what aspects of density have been examined and what gaps are still present. Finally, a re-conceptualisation of density is
presented, illustrating that density is more than a quantitative calculation that exists on its own; rather, for density to be
considered as an integral part of the urban environment, both 'hard' (i.e., quantitative) and 'SOW(i.e., qualitative, contextual)
elements must be included.
0 201 1 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Density; Taxonomy; R~conoeptualisation

Contents

1. Introduction .........................................................................
2. Researchstrategy ......................................................................
2.1. Limitations .....................................................................
3. Definitionsofdensi.....................................................................
3.1. Issues to consider when calculating density. ..............................................
4. The advantages and disadvantages of higher urban densities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1. Advantages of higher urban densities ..................................................
4.2. Disadvantages of higher urban densities ................................................
4.3. Issues when considering the advantages and disadvantages of higher urban densities .................
5. Relationshipswithdensity ..............................................................

* Corresponding author- Tel.: +M Q 1524 $10876; f a : +44 0 1524 594900.

E-mail addnss: c.boyko@lancaster.ac.uk (C.T.Boyko).

0305-9006%-see front matter @ 2011 Elsevier Ltd.AU rights reserved.

doi: 10.101 6/j.prn~.U)ll .M.001
 C.Z Boyko, R. Cooper/Pivg~~ss
in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1

5.1.Housing affordability and density. . . ...... . . . . . ....... . . ....... . .. 18

5.2.Dwelling type, density and mental well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3. Rivacy, community and density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4. Crowding, density and (mental and physical) well-being. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.5. Dissatisfaction, neighbourhood problems, perceived quality and density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U)
5.6. Human diversity and density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.7. Streets with shops, density and mental wellbeing. . . ....... . . ....... . . . . . ..... . . . . ........ . 21
5.8. Crimeanddensity ............................................................... 22
5.9. Alcoholism anddensity.. ..... . . . ...... . . . . . ....... . . ....... . . . . . ..... . . . . ........ . 22
5.10. Brownfield re-development and density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1 1. Biodiversity and density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.12. Pollutants and density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.13. Temperature, air flow, buildings and density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.14. Energy use and density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.15. Businesses, business location and density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.16. Government expenditure and density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
..
5.17. Physical activity and density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ... . . ...... ....
...... ...
. . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.18. Travel demandmehaviour and density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.19. Table of density studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Ataxowmyofdensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1. Studies by density type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.2. Studies by density relationship. . . . . ...... . . . . . ....... . . ....... . . . . . ..... . . . . ........ . 49
7. Conclusions: a re-conceptualisation of density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.1. Densitypolicy .................................................................. 52
Acknowledgements ................................................................... S3
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . 53

1. Introduction 1990; HM Treasury, 2006; Jenks et al., 19%; ODPM,

Of all the attributes that characterisea city, there can
be little doubt that proximity is the most crucial
because of its generative power: building and
population density, compactness of built form,
concentration of people, nearness and choice of
desired destinations and the constant buzz of
transaction and interaction are all expressions of
proximity and its outcomes (Grammenos, 10
February 201I).
Density is a key concept in planning, architectureand
urban design (Rapport, 19751, as it helps to describe,
predict and control the use of land (Berghauser Pont &
Haupt, 2007;DETR, 1998). It is also shaped by a city's
age, history, context, culture, geography, policies,
attitudes and economy (Smith, 1984). Many cities in
Europe, the UK and Australia, as well as some cities in
North America, advocate creating higher densities
through policy (Jenks, Burton, & Williams, 19%;
Neuman, 2005; see CEC, 1990, City of Vancouver,
2008; DCLG, 2006, Department of the Environment and
Local Government, 1999; DETR, 1998; Gillham, 2002;
Haughton & Hunter, 1994, 2003; HM Government,
2000,2005,2006; Williams, 2000, 2009). This may be
due to significant academic inte~stin the social impacts
of density (cf. the compact city v. sprawl debate, Barton,
2000; Breheny, 19% 1992b;Burton, 2002; CEC, 1990;
Dempsey & Jenks, 2010; DOE, 1992a; ECOTEC, 1993;
Elkin, McLaren, & Hillman, 1991; Evans, Aiesha, &
Food, 2009, Ewing, 1997; Freeman, 1992; Haughey,
2005; Haughton & Hunter, 1994, Hillman, 19%;
Jabareen, 2006,Jacobs, 1961;Jenks et al., 1996;Lindsay,
Williams, & Dair, 2010; Marshall, 2010; Neuman, 2005;
Newman & Kenworthy, 1989, 1992; Raman, 2010;
Rudlin & Falk, 1999; Scoffham & Vale, 1996; Skinner,
2006; Stmtton, 1996; Urban Task Force, 1999, 2005;
Williams, 2000, Williams, Joynt, & Hopkins, 2010; cf.
the New Urbanism literature, Calthorpe, 1993; Congress
for the New Urbanism, 1996; Katz, 1994; Urban Task
Force, 1999), as well as renewed practical interest over
resource use, the need to reduce car travel and heightened
environmental awareness-particularly since the Rio
Declaration of 1992 (DETR, 1998).
In addition, it is suggested that notions of density
play an integral part in achieving sustainable develop-
ment (DETR, 1998; Haughey, 2005; Jenks & Dempsey,
2005; Jenks et al., 1996; Owen, 2009; Urban Task
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss
Force, 1999,2005; Williams, Burton, & Jenks, 2000) as
well as in mitigating and adapting to climate change
(Wiiliamset al., 2010). As the advisors of the City of
Vancouver's (2008) EcoDensity policy state: "a city
cannot talk seriously about sustainability without
talking about density" (p. 7). They firmly believe that
an approach to density that is both well-designed
and strategic can foster more holistic communities,
which include improved transportation, affordable
housing, a strong economy and energy efficiency (cf.
the Location Efficiency Calculator, created by The
Prince's Foundation. 2009).
Whilst density is crucial to managing the long-
term sustainability of urban environments, some
concerns have arisen about its vagueness (Alexander,
Reed, & Murphy (1988); Churchman, 1999; Fisher,
1999). Critics have argued that density may be
problematic to define because it is dependent on what
kind of density is being explored (e.g., urban,
dwelling, people) and how that density is defined,
conceptualised and assessed. Furthermore, there
appears to be an over-emphasis on dwelling density
as the principle density type mentioned in policy; this
has the effect of inevitably passing over other, equally
important densities within the urban environment
(DETR, 1998). There also is ambiguity about how
information and data about density is collected,
summarised and analysed, with much variation
existing (Harris & Longley, 2000). Finally, research
and policy sometimes appear to suggest two opposing
views about increasing density in cities. For example,
some studies have shown that, on average, people
have a preference for lower versus higher density
housing (CABE, 2005; HATC, 2006; Howley, Scott,
& Redmond, 2009; Newton, 2010), or have negative
reactions to higher densities in existing urban areas
(Burton, Williams, Jenks, & Entec 1998, as cited in
Williams, 2009; CABE, 2005; DiPasquale & Whea-
ton, 2006; Shultz & King, 2001; Song & Knaap,
2003). However, policy advocates in many cities and
countries have pushed for higher densities, believing
it to be the panacea for sustainable living. Unfortu-
nately, such policies may not take into account
people's perceptions and feelings, nor the potential
tensions and trade-offs that are found between density
and a host of different issues. This lack of clarity
between research and policy can lead to policy-
makers focussing on only one density type or
choosing density figures that are not based on sound
evidence. Doing so may affect the value of sites and
result in unintended consequences (e.g., including a
public park in net density calculations could change
proposed density figures for a neighbourhood and
allow or disallow new dwellings in the area). To
operate within an effective planning system, clear and
simple guidance is needed about the role that density
plays in the design and development of the urban
environment, including how it is defined and
measured. There must be scope, however, to allow
for some interpretation within policy, as contextual
factors will undoubtedly shape how an area perceives
and considers density (DETR, 1998).
Continuing to think about only one or two types of
density and not communicating with relevant deci-
sion-makers and stake-holders about the two-way
relationship between density and other urban issues is
not useful for today's cities. This paper attempts to
address these concerns via two principle aims: (1) to
bring some clarity to the complexity surrounding
density in terms of definitions and metrics and (2) to
re-conceptualise density in new ways, demonstrating
that there exists multiple densities and that there is
value in thinking more broadly about how the concept
influences and is influenced by issues within the
urban environment. In fulfilling these aims, the
paper's original contribution to knowledge may be
identified: to enable decision-makers to use new
conceptualisations of density to move beyond the one
or two types of density usually considered in policy
and practice (i.e., dwelling, population), and to think
more broadly about what density is within the design
of urban environments. Moreover, decision-makers
can use the re-conceptualisations to uncover relation-
ships between density and other urban environment
issues that they may not have been aware of, and
work with other professionals to better understand
how these relationships affect the design of urban
environments.
Beyond Section 1, Section 2 outlines the research
strategy used in compiling this paper. Section 3
elucidates relevant definitions and metrics and flags
up issues to consider when calculating density.
Section 4 discusses the advantages and disadvantages
of increasing urban densities. Section 5 outlines key
relationships between density and a variety of issues
relevant to planning, architecture and urban design, as
found in the academic literature. In Section 6, an
innovative way of visualising density is desctibed-
known as a taxonomy of density-which uses
information from a selection of the relationships,
taken from Section 5. The taxonomy helps to
illustrate what types of density are most often studied
and where gaps exist in the literature. Building on the
previous section, the final section presents an analysis
 *ss in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
of the relationships and re-conceptualises density to
incorporate both 'hard' (i.e., the quantitative calcula-
tion of density) and 'soft' (i.e., qualities of the
physical and ambient environment, and people's
behaviours, needs and perceptions) dimensions.
Understanding that density is more than a ratio of
units to area, that it involves thinking about context
and other qualitative issues, is fundamental to
broadening decision-makers' awareness of the
wider impact of density on the design of wban
environments.
2. Research strategy
The research strategy adopted for the first five sections
of this paper is a review of the notion of density and of the
science behind it. The review had fow objectives: (l) to
obtain an understanding about the phenomenon of
density; (2) to begin creating a taxonomy of density;
(3) to collect evidence of the relationships between
density and other concepts and; (4) to re-conceptualise
density.
To start, key, density-related publications in the
fields of urban planning, urban design, built environ-
ment, environmental psychology and sustainability
were reviewed to obtain a basic understanding of
density (e.g., Chwchman, 1999; DETR, 1998;
Forsyth, 2003; Rapoport, 1975). l b o additional
review techniques then were used: snowball referen-
cing and online database sampling. With snowball
referencing, the references from the key, density-
related publications were examined. Those references
that were relevant (i.e., the publication title seemed
appropriate for the topic of density and the design of
urban environments) were chosen and the snowball
referencing process continued. Regarding online
database sampling, the authors searched various
databases (e.g., Academic Search Complete, GEO-
BASE, JSTOR, ABI/INFORM Global, ScienceDimt,
Web of Science on Web of Knowledge) using a
number of keywords related to density. The keywords
included 'density', 'urban density', 'design', 'built
environment', 'physical environment' and 'wban
environment'. From an initial examination of the
database results, relevant publications were chosen,
based on publication title, abstract and whether or not
density could be directly manipulated or found to
mediate another relationship (e.g., urban density
influences crime rates). The publications not chosen
from the database results often discussed density as it
related to other issues (e.g., medical issues, such as
bone density), or which explored theories and
conceptual modelling, and, therefore, were not seen
as relevant to an empirical review of density and
design in urban areas. Approximately 250 references
were examined for this review and 75 studies were
chosen for inclusion.
For the last section of this paper, which involved the
creation of the taxonomy of density, the authors
brainstormed ideas. Initially, they looked at the simple
spatial definition of density-a number of units in a
given area-and thought about all the different kinds of
density with which they were familiar and wrote them
down (i.e., types that would fit under the unit part of the
definition). They also spoke with nine experts on
density, architectwe, urban design, planning, the built
environment, regeneration and sustainability, who
were able to generate additional density types and
validate the ones developed by the authors. At this
point, the density types ranged from quite general (e.g.,
population density) to quite specific (e.g., density of
religion). The authors then clustered the different
density types according to similarity and level of
specificity (e.g., density of lakes, density of forests,
density of cropland together) and then gave each cluster
a heading (e.g., natural form). When completed, there
were five clusters(two additional clusters were formed,
relating to the a m part of the delinition): naturalform,
built fonn, mobile material form, static fonn and
people.
The authors felt that the best way to convey the
density types was through a taxonomy, which classifies
information in an ordered manner to indicate relation-
ships. Using the clusters and headings, the taxonomy
was laid out with five tiers, illustrating the different
density types and their relationship to one another (see
Fig. 1, and see Section 6 for more explanation of the
taxonomy). As with the density types, the experts
validated the taxonomy through discussions with the
authors.
Once the taxonomy was prepared, information about
the different density types used in 75 studies, shown in
Fig. 16, was added to obtain the frequency with which
each density type was mentioned. This exercise allowed
the authors to understand what types of density are, or
have been, studied and what gaps in the literature on
density exist.
This review possesses several limitations. First, the
authors could have searched more online databases to
find studies for this paper (e.g., JSTOR, PsycINFO).
Additionally, as only 75 studies were examined in
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Pmgmss in Planning 76 (2011) 1-61
Fig. 16, they are probably not representative of all the
studies about density relating to the design of the
urban environment. Nonetheless, the studies do give a
good sense of the density types most likely to be
researched as well as the wide variety of variables that
can be explored in relation to density.
Second, although all of the 75 studies-and some
of the references mentioned in Sections 4 and 5-are
empirically based, much of the research is correla-
tional in nature. This is mainly due to the data being
gathered in the field, where there is less control over
extraneous variables and it is more difficult to directly
manipulate density, versus a laboratory setting. Thus.
direct causal relationships between density and other
variables cannot be made. Rather, density is most
often shown to have a mediating or moderating effect
on something else, or is mediated or moderated by
another variable or variables. Nonetheless, showing
that density has a relationship to other variables in the
urban environment is important in clarifying density
and building a reconceptualisation of the concept.
Third, taking the findings as written ignores the
specific cultural and social contexts in which the studies
were undertaken. This point is expanded upon in
Section 4.3, but it is worth saying here that context plays
a crucial role in how people perceive and interpret
density and related issues, such as crowding. Context
also puts study findings into perspective: for example,
one study found that people in the UK were not willing
to pay a premium to live in dense neighbourhoods
(Burton, 2000a). In contrast, residents of Hong Kong
paid more to live in highdensity areas because of the
availability of highquality amenities, but also because
of high land values and the low availability of land
(Smith, 1984).
3. Definitions of density
Density, in a spatial sense, may be defined simply
as a number of units in a given atva. However, there
are many different definitions depending on what kind
of density is being sought. This section provides some
of the most well-known and well-used definitions of
density as they relate to the design of the urban
environment. In addition, the next section outlines
some issues to consider when calculating density.
Density is used as a metric by decision-makers
from many different disciplines and professions, such
as anthropology, architecture, ecology, economics,
environment-behaviour studies, planning, psychol-
ogy, sociology, transportation and urban design
(Churchman, 1999). Not surprisingly, then, there is
not one accepted measure that is employed by
everyone (Churchman, 1999; Forsyth, 2003). In
calculations of density, for example, the numera-
tor-the number of units-and/or denominator-
usually the base land area-may differ (e.g., the
number of people per hectare vs. the number of
dwellings in km2). Moreover, what is included and
excluded in the calculation of some measures of
density may vary (e.g., net density in one local
authority may include a measure of pavements
whereas another local authority may exclude it from
their calculations) (Churchman, 1999; DETR, 1998).
Table 1 illustrates some working definitions of
density, with the first 14 definitions pertaining to
dwelling units and population at varying scales (from
parcel to metropolitan area). Definitions 15-23
concern built area intensity measures at the parcel
or block scales.
From Table 1, the density measures most often used
by policy-makers are parcel density, net neighbourhood
residential dwelling/population density, city density,
metropolitan density and, in London, habitable rooms
per hectare (DETR, 1998). Essentially, these measures
encompass dwelling density at different scales-the
dwelling, the development site, the neighbourhood, the
city and the larger city area-and can be found in policy
and guidance (e.g., PPG3 in the UK). Density at each
scale, though, will be appropriate for certain kinds of
developments: parcel density (both gross and net
density) for individual housing sites, neighbourhood
density for a new residential community or urban
quarter, and city and larger city area density is
appropriate for new settlements or city extensions
@ETR, 1998).
For local authority planners, the above measures
will be used as well as front setbacks for kerbs and
parcels, side-to-side distances between buildings, and
floor area ratios and plot ratios (the latter often used
in North America and continental Europe, DETR,
1998). Design and development briefs also will use
floor area and plot ratios in their calculation of total
floor area (e.g., in m2). Developers are most likely to
use parcel density (Forsyth, 2003)- floor area ratios,
plot ratios and building site coverage. They also will
converse with architects using terminology about
total floor area, which can be readily converted into
dwelling density when designing for housing in
mixed-use developments (Johnny Winter, Edward
Cullinan Architects, personal communication, 6 June
201 1). Engineers and water professionals may be
interested in measures about impervious surface
coverage at both parcel and block scales. Finally,
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progms in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
Table 1
Working definitions of density.
Density type
l Habitable rooms per hectare
Habitable area
Occupancy density
Parcel or site density (or plot
ratio. when u d with floor
area)
Block density
Part block density
Net neighbourhood residential
dwelling/population density
Net neighbourhood residential
building type density
Metric
The number of moms in a dwelling that are
used for dwelling purposes (except for
kitchens, bathrooms and WO)divided by
total land area
The net internal area excluding kitchen.
utility, storage and notional circulation areas
Total number of occupants in an individual
dwelling divided by the total floor area
DU. W or floor area divided by total sitet
parcel area
DU or RP divided by block area measurcd to
the kerb
DU or RP divided by clear subset of block
area
DU or RP divided by total land aRa devoted
to residential facilities
S i to net neighbourhood residential
dwelling/population density but only eounts
dwellings of one type (e.g., laraced
housing)
Notes
Useful (along with dwellings per hectare)
for prwiding a broad indication of the
intensityffom of development on a site or in
an area; it is not effective in predicting or
conbolling the form of development on a
site
A measurement of the space used by
residenk for furniture and activities in living
and dining areas, and bedrooms; provides
more accurate mcasurc than habitable
rooms per hectare, particularly when
measuring flats, because it rcRects the fact
that dwelling may have open-plan arras
rather than rooms
Used in building services to determine
services required for that space
Often wed by developers; the most un-
ambiguous &ss n&urc; easy to calculate
with GIS: can be difficult to calculate from
physical ~bsmationsbccausc 1- or site
boundaries are not always visible; floor area
is useful when the same parcel consists of
land for residential and non-residential
purposes (i.e.. mixed-use) or in areas of high
density and large buldings; adopted as a
standard indicator for land use zoning and
development control regulation; used in
design briefing and development budgeting
Easy to measure from aerial photos and
census data, reflects a unit--the block-that
resonates with people living in the US and
Canada
Useful approximation for parcel or site
density in the US and Canada where the
block is a relevant unit of analysis; does
include pavement, so will lead to slightly
lower density numbers than 1- density
Neighbourhood should be a wnsus tract or
city-delineated area, typically W200 ha;
relatively simple using GIS; care must be
takcn to assign land to residential usesrather
-
than other uses (e.g., recreation) include
dwelling sites and gardens, private gardens,
play sp&s, landscapad are& adjacent to
and related to residential use, driveways/
private aocess drives. ancillary stnrctures
(e.g., garages), resident parking; exclude the
following, unless beneath a dwelling:
commerciaYindusaial areas, shops.
commercial garages, public parks,
playgrounds, undeveloped vacant land.
vacant unsuitable land, schools, houses of
worship. public strsets, public parking
spaces
Relatively simple using GIS
Table I (Continued)
Densitv tvoe
Net street density
Net neighbourhood density
G m s s neighbourhwd density
City density
Metmpnlitan density
Net residential density at city or
metmpolitan level
F l w r area ratio
Building site coverage or
coverage ratio
Building block coverage
Impervious surface parcel
coverage
Impervious surface h l w k
coverage
Building height for parcel
Fmnt parcel setback in feet for
parcel
Fmnt kerb setback
Metric
Similar to net neighbouthd rrsidential
dwcllindpopnlation
.. . density but includes
the public sueet rights-of-way that provide
access to residential p a m l s
DU or RP divided by the neighbnurhood
area with the base land area calculated to
exclude city-wide uses i n the
neighbourhood
DU or RP divided by the total
neighbourhood area
DU or RP divided hy the entire developed
area of the city
DV or RP divided by total area
DU or RP divided by residential land at a
city or mctmpolitan level
Built f l w r area on all flwrs divided by the
parcel area
Area o f gmund floor footprint of building
divided by the parcel area
Area of ground f l w r fwtprints o f buildings
divided by the block area measured to thc
kerb
Area o f pmund f l w r building footorint olus
paved car parks, drives. pavements, paths,
decks and other buildin~sdivided by site or
parcel area
Same a<impervious surface parcel coverage
but using the block as the base land area
Measured i n feet for parcel area
Diaancc fmm the fmnt facade of the
building to the fmnt prnperry line
Measured i n feet. with the selback of each
building from the kerb averaged by building
over a block
Notes
The denominator is typically the parcel area
plus half of the public riphtwf-way
adjacent to the residential parcels
lncludcs residential land, streets and
-
neighbourhwd uses schools, parka.
houses o f worship and neighbourhood
shopping; excludes city-wide businerws.
puhlic uses. high sch<wls. univmities.
major anerial roads, major regional parks
and vacant and unusable land dilferent
frnm net neighbourhood residential
dwelline/ponulation
-~~
density and net street
density in that it includes other
neighbo,~rhooduses whilst excluding
regional uses; appmpriate when planning
for a residential ncighburhwd or urban
quaner
Area defined as in net neighbourhood
residential dwellin#~pulation density, but
without any exclusions; one of the mast
ambiguous measures becaua land u a may
be skewed by regional uses (e.g.. mo)
Includes the entire city, hut on the urban
edge, it only includes developed land; a
gross density measure: appmpriate when
planning for a major mixed-use
development
Includes undeveloped areas; a gmss density
measure
Possible using large GIS databares;
presence o f housing i n mixed-use areas
makes it complicated. hut not impossible to
calculate
Often based on usable floor area rather than
fwtprint area; includes wall thickness;
varies by municigalily:
. . as olol
. rdtio. i t is
extensively adopted as a standard indicator
forland-use ronine- replation.
- development
control and urban maaerplans: used in
design briefing and development budgeting
Indicates the amount of open space left on a
site
I t is used when the parcel boundaries are not
known; reflccts the actual experience of an
environment better than parcel-by-parcel
cslc~lations
Indicates the area of land that has been built
upnn or paved but does not easily take
account o f pomus paving systems or decks
desixned for water infiltration
Mcasum o f building intensity; typical
measure i n zoning regulations
Rough measure o f the experience o f a
setback; includes the pavement and planting
strip area
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progms in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
Table 1 (Cotuinued)
Density type Metric
23 Side-to-side distances bctwccn Measured in feet and avtraged across a
buildings block
Soure: Adaptcd primarily fnnn (2003). but also Cheng (2010). C h u r c h (1999). DWR (1998). and HATC (2010).
DU =dwelling units; RP = residential population.
decision-makers in building services may use
occupancy density, as undertaking this calculation
helps to determine the spatial requirements for
various services and infrastructure for buildings.
Thus, with some exceptions, there appears to be some
overlap in the way density definitions are used
by various decision-makers, such as policy-makers,
planners, developers and architects.
3.1. Issues to consider when calculating density
Whilst Table 1 highlights some of the most
commonly used density definitions, it also raises issues
about which definition to use and when to use it. In the
case of planning, the most appropriate approach for
selecting which density measure to use will often
depend on the purpose for using the density measure,
the particular characteristicsof the development and the
surrounding area @Em, 1998), and the particular
stage of the urban design and development/planning
process (see Billing-Pemberton. Boyko, Cadman. &
Cooper, 2009; Boyko & Cooper, 2009, for more
information about the stages of the urban design process
and lifecycle).
A general issue to consider when calculating
density is that the measures provide averages and,
as such, do not represent more fine-grained fluctua-
tions in what is being measured (Gordon & Ikeda,
2011; Hitchcock, 1994). For example, the density of
dwellings in London in 2008 was 122 new dwellings
per hectare (DEFRA,2010). However, some schemes
will have had much lower dwelling densities (less than
30) and others, much higher densities (more than 400)
(numbers adapted from London Borough of Hammer-
smith and Fulham, 2007). As one might expect, this is
as true at the city scale as it is at the national scale:
dwelling densities in large, UK cities are approxi-
mately 40 dwellings per hectare, whereas in towns of
10,000 dwellings, the average is between 10 and 20
dwellings per hectare (Whitehead, 2008), with
population densities mirroring these figures quite
closely (Williams, 2009). Moreover, comparing
densities between places that use different average
Notes
Rough mcasurc of building bulk
areas in their calculations may not reflect the reality of
the situation (Pautasso & Weisberg, 2008; Williams,
2009). For example, the average densities of urban
areas in developing countries are higher than those in
developed countries (approximately 15,000 people1
km2 v. 5000 pwple/km2) (Huang, Lu, & Sellers,
2007). Thus, knowing a range of densities for an area
at whichever scale is necessary (e.g., street, neigh-
bourhood, city) and being consistent with the area used
in calculations may help to give the calculated density
figure some context.'
Another, more general issue to consider is that the
numerator and denominator used to calculate density do
not encompass enough information. Some scholars have
suggested that density is a composite of concepts such
as intensity, compactness, pressure on non-built spacel
spaciousnessand height. Thus, to more fully understand
density and its relation to urban form, decision-makers
in planning, architecture and urban design need to
consider these other aspect. of the urban fabric and
incorporate them into density definitions (Berghauser
Pont & Haupt, 2007).
In terms of calculating net densities, some scholars
have concerns about using it as the only measurement
when considering an area. They believe that net
residential density does not consider wider issues of
land capacity nor mixed uses. Net densities also do not
give any guide for evaluating different issues, such as
walkability and the viability of public transport in an
area (Rudlin & Falk, 1999).
When calculating population density, scholars report
that it is a discrete, one-dimensionalmeasure of whether
or not a space is occupied. However, cities are three-
dimensional in scope and scale; thus, there is a need to
develop measures that are able to represent the three
dimensionality of urban form. One possibility is to use
LIDAR data to measure the heights of various urban
forms (Harris & Longley, 2000).
'For information about bow several different countries measure
density, please read DETR (1998).
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss
Finally, in terms of calculating urban density,
many scholars turn to census data. However, the
census-whilst becoming richer over the years-still
artificially partitions socio-economic spaces into
unmodified 'land parcels' in an attempt to standardise
units of analysis (Martin, Winter 1998). This does not
offer an ideal framework in which to assess urban
population densities because urban populations are as
diverse as they are uniform at this scale, thus calling
into question the internal homogeneity of the units of
analysis (Longley & Harris, 1999; Mitchell, Martin,
& Foody, 1998; both as cited in Harris & Longley,
2000). One alternative to using census data alone is to
supplement it with a 'buffer zone' (e.g., an area at
least 400 m around the census output area). Using a
buffer zone allows those calculating urban density to
capture residents within a census output area as
well as "the diversity of residents' own definitions
of their neighbourhoods" (Jenks & Dempsey, 2007,
p. 173).
Having explored different definitions of density, the
authors conclude that there is a need to simplify the
concept or re-consider density in a way that makes it
easier to understand within the design of urban
environments. At the same time, efforts also must be
made to incorporate the complexity of everyday living
into the 'hard' dimension of density (i.e., the
quantitative calculation); in effect, 'soft' dimensions
must be considered as well (i.e., qualities of the physical
and ambient environment; people's behaviours, needs
and perceptions) (Churchman, 1999). To this end, a
taxonomy of density is offered in Section 6, using a
simple density definition (i.e., a number of units in a
given area) as well as a re-conceptualisation of density
in Section 7 as one way to bring some clarity to the
concept.
With density having been defined and some of its
complexities explored, the next section builds on the
description of what density is and examines the
contested nature of wanting to increase densities in
cities.
4. The advantages and disadvantages of higher
urban densities
As suggested in Section 1, density plays an
important role in the decision-making processes
found within architecture, planning and urban design.
In many urban environments, decision-makers debate
about the positive and negative intended conse-
quences of building at high urban densities (Church-
man, 1999; Jacobs, 1961; Verbrugge & Taylor, 1976).
However, there is little evidence to support the idea
that higher densities affect everyone in the same way
(Churchman, 1999), that the market could cope with
higher densities or that people would even prefer
higher densities (Hall, 1999).~Thus, the picture
surrounding density is not as clear as it could be;
understanding densities and consequent impacts on
quality of life, liveability, perceived equity and
sustainability, therefore, become crucial.
The following advantages and disadvantages of
higher urban densities have been taken from the
relevant literature (i.e., from the sources identified in
the research strategy), and do not necessarily reflect a
dose-response effect. That is, a particular advantage
of higher urban densities (e.g., introducing urban
agriculture to reduce 'food miles') may not be the
direct and only result of higher urban densities.
Rather, higher urban densities may exert a consider-
able influence on the advantage, but it may not be the
only influence. As is most often the case, a
correlational relationship may exist, or a relationship
that is moderated or mediated by other variables.
Using the urban agriculture example, higher urban
densities may need to be combined with policies that
encourage food growth in urban areas, willingness of
local authorities to convert vacant land into temporary
allotments and willingness of residents to want to
grow food on available land to be effective. Another
issue regarding the list of advantages and disadvan-
tages of higher urban densities is that different
people--for example, researchers, practitioners, pol-
icy-makers, residents -will experience density
differently: an advantage for one person may be
perceived as a disadvantage by others (Churchman,
1999). Finally, although many of the claims made in
Tables 2-14 are supported by evidence, some
references are more theoretical, conceptual or
deterministic (i.e., if X happens with density, then
Y behaviour will occur). These latter references
include Christoforidis (1994), City of Vancouver
(zoos), Haughey (2005), Hillman (1996), Hitchcock
(1994), Mayor of London (2008), National House-
!Building Council (2007), Owens (1992) and Urban
Task Force (1999).
Pulford (19%) notes that developers would like governments to
create a consistentset of policies that would clear up my uncertainties
about density so that the i n d u q could adapt, as developers would
like to build more sustainably.
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
4.1. Advantages of higher urban densities
A number of writers, scholars and policy-makers
have advocated the advantages of building at higher
densities within urban areas (see Tables 2-8). These
advantages may be partitioned into different cate-
gories, as determined by the authors, and are
discussed below: mobility, efficient land/resource
use, social equity and diversity, economic, green
space, physical and energy. To avoid cluttering the
paragraphs with numerous references, the authors
have numbered each of the rows in Tables 2-8, and
Table 2
Mobility advantages of higher urban densities.
Mobility advantages
1 Reducing fossil fuel cmissions/urbon
footprint
Enhancing accessibility, as people l i e
closer to where they work, shop and play
Making m s i t more viable and dfifient
Building developments near public
transportation can decrease pressure on land
further from hub, lines etc.
Enabling public health benefits from more
walkable and biifriendly neighbourhoods
Offering more v t i e s t o walk orcycle
Decreasing pollution from vehicle exhausts
due to less use of vehicles, greater mix of
land uses and more walking and accessible
public transportation as well as decreasing
aaffic congestion
Deatasing the toml number of vehicle trip
as well as the number of kilometres per trip
9 Cnating &ciencies in mixed-used
developments through s h a d parking
have used those corresponding numbers in the
paragraph text.
In terms of mobility advantages, higher urban
densities in cities are purported to reduce fossil fuel
emissions as well as the carbon footprint of develop-
ments, neighbourhoods and cities (1). Because people,
buildings, services and infrastructure are physically
closer to one another, greater sharing of certain
resources can occur. A good example is public
transportation: with more people in a tightly packed
urban area, the ability to move about becomes more
viable and efficient on trains, trams and buses-as well
Reference
Alexander and Tomalty (2002). Burtw (2000a), Churchman (1999), City of
Vancouver (2008). DETR (1998). Oordon (1997). as cited in W E (2006);
Holdm and Norland (2005). Kamal-Chad and Bobert (2009), Llwelyn-
Davies (1998). LSE (2006). Mayor of London (2008). National House-
Building Council (2007). Urban Task Pom (1999). Williams et al. (2000).
Willis, lbmcr, and Batman (2001); Woodhull (1992), as cited in
Churchman (1999)
Alcxanderand Tomalty (2002)-Burton (2000a), Churchman (1999), City of
Vancouver (2008). DElR (1998). Gordon (1997). as cited in LSE (2006).
Holden and Norland (20051, Lltwclyn-Davie8 (1998)- Mayor of London
(2008). LSE (2006). National House-Building Council (2007). Urban Task
Force (1999). Williams et al. (2000). Willis et al. (UIOI). Woodhull (1992).
as cited in Churchman (1999)
Berridge Lmhberg Gnenberg Ltd.(1991). as cited in Chmhman (1999),
Breheny (1996). Churchman a al. (1996), as cited in Churchman (1999),
City of Vancouver (20081, De Roo and Miner (W). DETR (1998).
Haughey (2005), Hillman (19%). Holden and Nodand (2005). Llewelyn-
DaviaP (1998). Mayor of London (2008); New York City Hanning
Commission (1993). as cited in Chmhman (1999). Newman and
Kenworthy (1989). Portnov and Errell (2001), Regional Municipality of
York (1994), Reid (1986). both as cited in Churchman (1999). Owens
(1992), Rydin (1992). Stenhouse (1992). as cited in Churchman (1999);
Urban Task Force (1999). and Wdliams et al. (2000)
Slhman (1992). as cited in Churchman (1999)
Alexander and Tomalty (m), City of Vancouver (m). DETR (1998).
%ens (1992), Stenhouse (1992), as cited in Churchman (1999)
Bannister (1992). Woodhull (1992). as cited in Churchman (1999)
Berridge L-dnberg Greenberg Ltd.(1991), as cited in Churchman (1999).
Owens (1992). Stmbouse (1992). as cited in Churchman (1999)
Bannister (19921, Banholomew (2007). B d d g e Ltwinberg Grrtnbcrg
Ltd. (1991). as cited in Churchman (1999). Brcheny (1992b), Haughcy
(2005). Kamal-chaoui and Robert (24tO9); Stenhouse (1992). as cited in
Churchman (1999). Stone et al. ( a n , Woodhull (1992). as cited in
Churchman (1999)
Haughey (2005)
Table 3
Efficient IandEresourcc use advantages of higher urban densities.
Eflicient landreswrce use advantages
Malci~~g better use of resources (including
natural resources), and existing
infrashucture (e.g.. roads, sewers.
pavements)
Making idmtmclure more efficient via
ubiquitous computing
Reducing development pressllre on
agricultural and indusdal land as well as
existing green space to create a more
efficient use of land whilst maintaining a
bigh quality of life
Introducing urban agriculture to reduce
'food miles' and strcngthcning local food
security
Intensifying the use of urban areas
Enabling gradations of density through a
hierarchical, multi-centred urban structure
Creating a greater mix of land uses
Table 4
Social equity and diversity advantages of higher urban densities.
Social equity and diversity advantages
17 Significantlyimproving housing choice and
enabling affordability for all residents.
including young families and the elderly
Reducing social segregation and exclusid
isolation and may enhance social support,
social capital, attachment and desired levels
of privacy
Adding diversity, safety, vitality, and
opportunities for creative and social
interaction
Creating a more liveable and sustainable
urban environment and facilitating more
activities in the city centre, conhibuting to
vitality
Roviding access ta facilities (e.g., schmls,
employment, shops) independent of h
ability to afford a private vehicle
Redeveloping at densities that recapture a
neighbourhood's former vitality
Ensuring a sufficient supply of dwelling in
the future
Reducing crime by increasing pedwuirn
activity and fostering a 24-h community that
puts more 'eyes on the saeet'
Reference
Alexander andTomalty(2002). Breheny (I992b). City of Vancouver (2008),
DETR (1998), Haughey (2005), Kamal-Chaoui and Robert (2009), Mayor
of London (U)08), and Urban Task Farce (1999)
cl& and cdlagban (2007)
Alexander and Tomalty (2002).Alterman (19971, Berridge Lewiiberg
Greenberg Ltd. (1991), as cited in Churchman (1999), Burton and Matson
(1996). City of Newcastle upon Tyne (1993). as cited in Churchman (1999).
City ofVancouver(2008). DETR (1998). L e h m and Associates (1993, as
cited in Churchman (1999). Porblov and Errell (?l). and W~lliamset al.
(2000)
City of Vancouver (2008)
Manshadm and de Schmidt (19921, Martin County (1994). both as cited in
Churchman (1999)
Bwridgc Lmvinbcrg Grccnbcrg Ltd (1991). as cited in Churchman (1999)
Alexander andTomalty(2002). Mayor of London (2008). Stcnhouse(1992).
as cited in Churchman (1999)
Reference
Alexander and Tomalty (m), Bemidge Lcwinberg Green- Ltd. (1991),
City of Newcastle upon Tyne (1993), bath as cited in Churchman (1999).
City of Vancouver (2008). DEIX (1998). Downs (2001). as cited in
Alexander and Tomalty (2002), Hitchcock (1994). Israel Ministry of the
Interior (1992). Martin County (1994). Regional Municipality of York
(1994), all three as cited in Churchmm (1999)
Churchman and Ginsberg (1984). Granov- (1973), Lehman and
Associates (1995). as cited in Chmhman (1999), LSE (2006), National
House-Building Council (2007). Roberts (1978), as cited in Churchman
(1999)
Cadman and Wyne (1989). Churchman (1993). as cited in Churchman
(1999). City of Vancouver (2008); National House-Building Council
(2Mn), van Vliet (1989, Wohlwill (1985), both as cited in Qlurchman
(1999)
Berridge Lewinherg Grewberg Ltd. (1991), as cited in Churchman (1999),
Haughton and Hunter (1994). Jenks a d. (1996). R o h (1978). as cited in
Churchman (199% Williams et al. (m). and Wfi et al. (2001)
h l p - D a v i e s (1998). Mayor of London (2OW), Williams et al. (2000),
and WNi et al. (Ulol)
NW York City PlanningCommission (1993), as cited in Churchman (1999)
Regional Municipality of Y d (1994), Wong and Yeh (1985). both as cited
in Churchman (1999)
Haushey (UKl5)
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progms in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
Table 5
Economic advantages of h i g h urban densities.
Economic advantages
Enabling investments in oew and better
community amenities as well as better
quality and more ateactive building
materials
Promoting a critical mass -ary to
support local retail and service areas
Attracting businesses, hotels, shopping and
upscale residential development to urban
areas as well as high-quality health,
education, culture, recreation and municipal
service opportunities
Enabling the use and extension o f m a r y
~lrbanservices in an efficient and
economical manner
Improving a city's economic efficiency and
employment opportunities
30 Increasing productivity levels
31 Enabling the construction of low-cost,
middle-density housing, infrastructure and
land in appropri;lu neighbourhoods
32 Helping keep the local economy vibrant and
healthy
33 Inmasing the overall value of nearby
detached dwellings over the long-term
as cycling and walking-than using private vehicles (3,
6). Using these former modes of transport reduces the
total number and length of trips completed in private
vehicles as well as reduces pollution from vehicle
exhausts (7,8). Furthermore, cycling and walking offer
health benefits that are not matched by private vehicles
(5). Living, working and recreating in higher wban
densities, which may include many types of mixed-use
development and transportation hub development (4, g),
also enhances general accessibility to a variety of
services and facilities, and decreases pressure on land
further away (2).
Table 6
Greenspace advantages of higher urban densities.
henspace advantages
34 Increasing the value attached by residents to
local open space within the city, relative to
that in areas outside
Preserving green open spas, clean air and
water and fauna and flora systems within a
plan's boundaria
Reference
City of Vancouver (208) and Hitehccck (1994)
Haughey (UIOS). National House-Building Council (2007), New York City
Planning Commission (1993). as cited in Churchman (1999)
Audirac and Smith (1992). Churchman et al. (1996). Faludi and van der Valk
(1994), all three as cited in Churchman (1999), Jenks et al. (1996)
Haughton and Hunter (1994), Hitchcock (1994). National House-Building
Council (2007). New Yorlr City Flanning Commission (1993). as cited in
Churchman (1999)
Alexander (1993). Bemdge Ldiberg Grcenberg Ltd. (1991). both as cited in
Churchman (1999). National House-Building Council (2007). h s t and Dingle
(1995). Troy (1995). both as cited in Churchman (1999)
LSE (m)
Cluistoforidis (1993)- New York City Planning Commission (1993). Reiser
(1992). both as cited in Churchman (1999)
City of Vancouver (2008) and DEIR (1998)
Akin to some of the mobility advantages, higher
urban densities also have land uselresource efficiency
advantages. Land uses can be intensified in higher-
density urban areas, creating a greater mix of uses and
possibly enabling density gradients so that cities do not
look uniform (e.g., higher densities near transport hubs,
with densities gradually decreasing further away from
the hubs) (10, 14, 15, 16). Infrastructure can be made
more efficient so that roads and sewers do not need to be
expanded to outlying areas that only serve a small group
of people (1 1). Doing so reduces development pressure
on land, such as agricultural and industrial land and
Reference
LSE (2006)
Berridge Lcwinbcrg h b e r g Ltd. (1991). as cited in Churchman (1999).
Haughey (2003, Kamal-Chaoui and Robert (2009). Martin County (1994),
New York City Planning Commission (1993). Regional Municipality of
York (1994); van der Ryn and Calthorpe (19861, all four as cited in
Churchman (1999)
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1

Table 7
Physical advantages of higher urban densities.
Physical advantages Reference
Providing a favourable physical Kamal-Chaoui and Robert (2009), Wong and Yeh (1985). as cited in Churchman (1999)
environment in terms of maximum
heighis with at least minimal spacing
between buildings, thus improving
the quality of high-density si~ctures
37 Bringing buildings closer to the street New York City Planning Commission (1993). as cited in Churchman (1999)
to provide 'eyes on the s m t '

Table 8
Energy advantages of higher urban densities.
Energy advantages
38 Facilitating innovative, green design and
district energy and reducing consumption of
water and energy
Allowing for technological and eoonomic
viability of certain energy technologies and
transpwtation systems
Reference
Alexander and Tomalty (2002). Anderson, Kanmglou, and Miller (19%),
Breheny (1992b). Bmberg and Kyttif (2010); City of Newcastle uponTyne (1993),
cited in Churchman (1999), City of Vancouver (2008). DETR (1998), IhE (1994),
ECOl'EC (1993), Holden and Norland (2005). Newman and Kenworthy (1989,
1991). Owens (1992). Regional Municipality bf York (1994). Stenhouse (1992),
both as cited in Churchman (1999)
Broberg and Kyttii (2010) and Owens (1992)

green space, and may improve quality of life in cities as
a result (12). Finally, in an effort to reduce 'food miles',
high urban densities may increase land used for urban
agriculture, thereby strengthening local food security
(13).
The social advantages of higher urban densities are
diverse. Housing choice may be significantly
improved, particularly in terms of affordability, as
more segments of society are mixing and living
together in a compact area (17). With more people
present, an urban area may become safer, more diverse,
more accessible and more liveable (19, 20, 21, 24),
creating opportunities for greater social interaction,
social support and attachment to the community (18,
19). This may contribute to the overall vitality of an
area (20, 22), which may ensure a sufficient, future
housing supply and provide a boost to areas that have
lost some vitality (22, 23).
Economically, higher urban densities are purported
to enable investment in better-quality amenities and

Table 9
Mobility disadvantagesof higher urban densities.
Mobility disadvantages Reference
40 Exacerbating trafiic congestion. Bnheny (1992b), De Roo and Miller (2000). DETR (1998). Jenks et al. (19%).
parking problems and increased Llewelyn-Davies (1998), Rydin (1992). Troy (19%). as cited in Churchman
traffic accidents (1999). and Williarns et al. (2000)
41 Losing a status symbol because it may Mullins (1995). as cited in Churchman (1999), Rapport (1977)
be difficult to maintain an automobile
(e.g.. finding parking spaces)
42 Creating ptdtscrian congestion and Robtns (1978). as cited in Churchman (1999). Ruback and Pandey (1992)
congestion in public transportation
facilities
43 Causing congdon and disruption at Troy (19%). as cited in Chwchman (1999)
the strett l e d w h m the consEruction
of high-density buildings is taking
place
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progms in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
Table 10
Land use disadvantages of higher urban densities.
Land use disadvantages Reference
44 Limiting recreational opportunities Cheshire and Sheppard (2002), as cited in LSE (2006),DETR (1998)
45 Reducing an area's capacity to absorb Tmy (1996). as cited in Churchman (1999)
rainfall because of open and recreational
space loss
46 Providing less choice as to the placement of Hitchcock (1994)
buildings in spaces when net densities
Increase
Taking longer to a b b land for high- rather Reiser (1992). as cited in Churchman (1999)
than low-density projects because more
units must be sold to absorb each acre of
land
Exaoerbating pollution, possibly because of Bnheny (1992b). DCROO and Miller (2000). Tmy (1996). as cited in
reduced space for tries and shrubs that Churchman (1999). Williams et al. (2000)
purify the air and cool the arca
49 Reducing the availability of public open Bnheny (1992b). De Roo and Miller (2000). and SimoD and Wekcrle
spa= (1987)*
a Others have not found a positive relationship between hiihdcnsity and loss of public open space. however (sec van Andcl. 1998, as cited in
Churchman. 1999).

building materials (25), which may have a knock-on
effect in terms of people wanting to spend more time
and money in an area. Crucially, compact cities also
promote a critical mass of people that are necessary to
support services and keep the local economy healthy
(26, 32), which may attract further retail and leisure
uses as well as health, education, culture and municipal
services (27). A city's economic efficiency, productivity
and employment opportunities may improve in urban
areas with higher densities because of the concentration
of people (29, 30), enabling urban services to be
extended and used more effectively versus in more

Table 11
SociaVpsychological disadvantages of highw urban densities.
Sociallpychological disadvantages Reference
50 Leading to cramped living environments DETR (1998)
51 Leading to loss of privacy and increases in De Roo and Miller (2000), DETR (1998), McCarthy and Saegert
noise, nuisance etc. (1978) and Tmy (19%), both as cited in Churchman (1999)
52 Obmcting news, causing overshadowing Hitchcock (1994)
and giving a visual sense of lack of

Leading to diff~cultyin supervisingchildren Aiello et al. (1985). as cited in Churchman (1999)

in outdoor play spaces and choice of friends
Causing psychological stnss. cognitive Baum and Paulus (1987). Evans snd Cohen (1987). Flsming a al.
overload, loss of wnhul, anxiety. social (1987). Jain (1987). and L m and Ong (1984)
withdrawal, physiological ovustimulation
and violations of personal space
Leading to constraints on individual Baum and Paulus (1987)
behaviour and freedom of choice
Reinforcing social inequality and social DETR (1998). R h k g (19961, as cited in Churchman (1999)
scgrcgation
Leading to competition between groups for Jain (1987). Loo and Ong (1984). McCanhy and Saegert (1978). as
space and other social conflicts, such as a cited in Churchman (1999)
severing of social ties
Slowing &W household formation LSE (U]W), as cited in LSE (2006)
Contributing to a lower o d sense of Wdson and Baldasam (1996)
community
60 Immssing crime De Roo and Miller (2000)
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1

Table 12
Economic disadvantages of higher urban densities.
Economic disadvantages Reference
Costing more to build and maintain high- Alexander (1993). Ewing (1997), Haughton and Hunter (1994). Tmy (1992,
density pmjects than medium- or low- 1996). as cited in Churchman (1999)
density projects as well as city centre
infrastructure
62 Increasing dative prices for dwellimp. Alexander (1993). as cited in Churchman (1999); LSE (20W). as cited in
goods and services and land LSE (2006)
63 Resbicting access to more local areas of LSE (2006)
undeveloped land, which knd to be more
highly valued
64 Negatively impacting the economic Breheny (1992b)
development of surrounding rural areas

sprawling or rural areas (28). Finally, a greater
concentration of people, places and services may
enable low-cost, medium-density housing to be con-
structed in alreadyestablished, low-density neighbour-
hoods (31), which may help to increase the value of
nearby dwellings over time (33).
Higher urban densities also are advantageous for
green spaces. A recent report has stated that local open
spaces are valued by residents more in high-density
urban areas, relative to areas outside cities (34). Such
spaces bring clean air as well as flora and fauna
systems to areas that otherwise might be lacking such
amenities (35).
Physical advantages of higher urban densities
revolve mund quality and safety. Regarding the
former, the quality of high-density structures is
improved, resulting in a favourable physical environ-
ment, because maximum heights and minimal spacing
between buildings can be enforced (36). Concerning the
latter, research suggests that compact cities bring
buildings closer to the street, hence, more opportunities
to observe daily occurrences and potentially reduce
crime (37).
Finally, higher urban densities have energy advan-
tages. Compact cities facilitate innovation in terms of
green design because energy and financial savings can
be made from the tightly packed nature of people
and developments (38). This includes innovation in
transportation systems (39).
4.2. Disadvantages of higher urban densities
Although there appear to be many advantages to
higher urban densities, disadvantages persist, some of
which seem to contradict the advantages. The authors
have classified disadvantages into the following
categories: mobility, land use, social/psychological,
energy and miscellaneous (see Tables 9-14). As with
the text pertaining to advantages, the authors have
numbered each of the rows in Tables 9-14, and have
used those corresponding numbers in the paragraph
text.
In terms of mobility disadvantages, higher urban
densities can exacerbate traffic congestion and
parking problems, and increase traffic accidents
(40). Thus, although compact cities appear to favour

Table 13
Energy disadvantages of higher urban densities.
65 Using morc cnwgy during construction of higb-dcnsitybuildings Rydin (1992)
66 Limiting some forms of ambient energy systems, such as passive solar power h e n s (1992) and Rydin (1992)

Table 14
Additional didvantap of higher urban densities.
Additional disadvantages Rdaence
67 Stnrcaaally shifting the types of households being accommodated LSE (2004). as cited in LSE (2006)
68 Redudng the capacity to cope with domestic waste and to recycle Tmy (1996). as cited in Churchman (1999)
 *ss in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
public transportation, cycling and walking, people
still will continue to use private vehicles and may not
wish to give up a status symbol--a car-to use other
transport modes (41). Nonetheless, increased foot
traffic may cause congestion at street level where
construction of high-density buildings is occurring
(43), especially around public transportation facilities
(42).
Although scholars often write about the benefits of
higher urban densities in terms of land use efficiency,
there also exist some disadvantages. Within compact
cities, there may be limited recreational opportunities
(44) due to a paucity of public open space (49). This
may reduce an urban area's ability to cope with
rainfall (43, and exacerbate existing pollution
because of a lack of 'green lungs' (48). Furthermore,
should planners wish to find or retain open spaces,
there will be less choice in terms of the placement of
new, high-density buildings and structures (46), thus
creating a catch-22 between density and open space.
Finally, land for high-density developments may
take longer to absorb than lowdensity projects
because more units would need to be sold in the
former to absorb each measure of land (e.g., hectare)
(47).
From a social and psychological perspective,
higher urban densities may be perceived as dis-
advantageous. Due to lack of space, both within and
between buildings, living environments may be
cramped (50), lacking in privacy, noisy (51), and
overshadowed (52). Such overshadowing may mean
that parents are less able to supervise children (53), or
be able to witness delinquent behaviour, which could
lead to increases in crime (60). Furthermore, in direct
contradiction to one of the social advantages of
compact cities, scholars suggest that higher urban
densities reinforce social inequity and segregation
(56). lead to constraints on individual freedom and
choice (55) and may cause psychological stress,
anxiety, social withdrawal, loss of control, cognitive
overload, physiological over-stimulation and viola-
tions of personal space (54). This could possibly
result in a decreased sense of community (59), or the
severing of social ties, as people compete for limited
space (57). Moreover, a lack of space may result in
household sizes in urban areas that are smaller, or
there may be a longer wait to have children until more
space is available (58).
Higher urban densities can introduce economic
disadvantages. For example, high-density buildings
and infrastructure often cost more to build and maintain
than lower-density buildings and infrastructure outside
the city, respectively (61). The relative price of goods,
services, dwellings and land also are higher than in
lower-density areas, contrary to the social advantage
that housing is more affordable (62). Perhaps, though,
the overall cost of living in compact cities is lower and,
therefore, more affordable, given that transport costs
may be cheaper. Moreover, people may not have access
to undeveloped land in high-density urban areas
because it is often highly valued, thus potentially
depriving residents of places to recreate (63). Finally,
with attention paid to the development of higher-
density urban areas, surroundingrural areas may suffer,
economically (64).
Energy and energy use possess disadvantages when
applied to higher urban densities. Whilst people may
use less energy in compact cities, more energy is used in
the construction of high-density buildings, particularly
skyscrapers (65). Furthermore, tall buildings may limit
some forms of ambient energy technology on nearby
buildings, such as passive solar panels, because they
block the sun (66).
Finally, additional disadvantages of higher urban
densities that could not be categorised elsewhere
include a structural shift in the types of dwellings
being built and offered on the market (i.e., more flats)
(67), and a reduced capacity to cope with domestic
waste and recycling (68).
4.3. Issues when considering the advantages and
disadvantages of higher urban densities
The declared advantages and disadvantages of
higher urban densities-much like the relationships
with density in Section 5-need to be tempered by an
understanding of three key issues: context, perception
of density and crowding. These issues, along with
whether or not there is empirical evidence for the
findings in Sections 4 and 5 (v. untested, conceptual
ideas), can moderate the strength of results and
relationships, situate findings in a defined place and
time and showcase the importance of thinking about
the 'softer' side of density (i.e., qualities of the
physical and ambient environment, and people's
behaviours, needs and perceptions).
Context involves a whole host of relevant
psychological, social, cultural, economic, geographic,
physical, ecological and technological dimensions of
a situation (Churchman, 1999). Each situation will
determine which dimensions are relevant and how
those dimensions are relevant (Haughey, 2005;
Stokols, 1987). For example. defining a relevant
physical area to calculate density relies on both
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooprr/Progmssin Phnning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
subjective and objectives definitions of that area,
which may be at odds with one another (Churchman,
1999). The physical area also may not have meaning
to some people (e.g., an urban block within England
v. America). Particularly with dwelling density,
context will influence household sizes amongst
different population groups, regions and countries.
This issue raises difficulties when comparing across
local authorities--or even at the scale of countries-
as density figures will differ even though they may be
trying to measure the same thiig (Alexander, 1993).
Finally, the idea that high density is equated with
'sustainable' or 'liveable' depends on the cultural and
social contexts-and their associated meanings and
values (Doberti & Giordano, 2007; Jenks & Dempsey,
2005; Rao, 2007)-in which that density is based
(Bramley, Dunrnore, Dunse, Gilbert, Thanos, &
Watkins, 2010; Breheny, 1997; Raman, 2010). This
last point about the importance of considering context
when examining density findings is particular
pointed, as the density studies shown in Section 5
originate or were undertaken in many different cities,
countries and continents. Thus, a significant result
in one place may or may not be significant in
another due to variations in cultural and social
contexts.
How people perceive density in a situation may
help to determine how they will behave and what
emotional responses they will give (Glass & Singer,
1972; Sherrod, 1974). They may have certain
arrangements or expectations in mind when con-
sidering what they want to achieve in that setting
(e.g., being able to get out of a crowded London Tube
carriage at rush hour). Moreover, people's perceptions
of the situation will be influenced by a number of
factors, including the perceptual, symbolic and
physical aspects of an environment; the temporal
aspects of activities and; the socio-cultural nature and
experiences of individuals, groups and settings
(Cheng, 2010; Rarnan, 2010; Rapoport, 1975). In
terms of the physical aspects of environments,
landscaping, building type and design-as well as
noise and aesthetics-all play a profound role in
determining perceived density (Forsyth, 2003).
Perceived density, therefore, may be defined as.
"an individual's perception and estimate of the
number of cues in the environment that represent
people and their activities" (Churchman, 1999, p.
403). From this, two key psychological dimensions
may be considered when exploring density: social
constraint, or the ability of a person to interact with
others and be concerned with the consequences of
that interaction, and spatial restraint, or the ability of
a space to restrict movement and thereby threaten
physical contact (Taylor, 1981).
A third issue that moderates the advantages and
disadvantages of density and the relationships in
Section 5 relates to crowding and its distinction with
density.3 Whereas density is often viewed as a more
objective concept (cf. Rapoport, 1975, for a refutation
of density as an objective measurement), crowding
refers to a more subjective experience, intimately tied to
our perceptions. From a psychological and social
viewpoint, the subjective experience of crowding is
usually negative and may be influenced by physical,
interpersonal andlor inhapersonal conditions (Church-
man, 1999), such as not getting enough privacy. In
general, when a person has more interaction with others
than is wanted, a feeling of crowding may be
experienced. This may be resolved by either expending
energy to achieve the desired level of privacy or by
shifting the desired level of privacy to a lower state
(Altman, 1975). Nonetheless, the distinction between
objective density conditions and the subjective experi-
ence of crowding is such that one cannot assume that an
increase in density will produce a necessary increase in
crowding (Forsyth, 2003; Godon & Ikeda, 2011;
Stokols, 1972). Indeed, Mandel, Baron, & Fisher (1980)
have established that perceived density correlates
significantly with spatial crowding (i.e., space is too
small for people), particularly for women, but not with
social crowding (i.e., too many people in a space).
Finally, Scoffham and Vale (19%) intimate that
intensity of development relates to the crowdedness
of a place. Thus, depending on the context and people's
perceptions of crowding. the strength of the advantages
and disadvantages of density as well as relationships
with density may vary. For example, increasing urban
densities is supposed to reduce feelings of isolation.
However, in megacities, such as New York City, some
people may perceive dwellings and spaces as too
Much of the initial mearch on mwding o c c u d in the 1970s
and 1980s (e.g., Baron & Rodin. 1978; Baum. Fisher, & Solomon,
1981; Cohen & Shcrrod, 1978; C&, Glass.& PhiUips. 19n, h,
Pugh, & Gundemn. 1975; Epstein & Karlin. 1975; Evaas, 1979;
Langcr & Saegcrt, 1977; Loo, 1973; Proshansky et al., 197Q Rodin,
Solanon, & Metcalf. 1978; Schiffenbauetet al., 1977;Sherrod, 1974;
Stokols a al.. 1973; StokoIs. 1976; Sundsmm. 197% Wener &
Kaminoff, 1983; Wicker, 1973). with caamitions later on (e.g.,
Amebergct & Haidcr, 2005; Bonncs, Bonaiuto, & Ercolani, 1991;
Evms et al.. 2010; Kayn & Erkip. m l ) . From this body of research, a
variety of f a c m have been identified rhat may influence the relation-
ship between crowding and density, including physical environment,
socio-cultural,situational and individual factors (Churchman. 1999).
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progrws in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
crowded, both spatially and socially. In response, they
may retreat into their dwellings and not wish to interact
with those around them, thus exacerbating feelings of
isolation.
The next section presents research that explores the
breadth of relationships between density and other
variables. Many of the studies illustrate relationships as
found in Section 4 (i.e., the advantages and disadvan-
tages of higher urban densities). However, there were no
attempts made to exclude studies that demonstrated
alternative or even contradictory relationships with
density.
5. Relationships with density
A review of the relevant literature revealed that
density is intimately connected with many different
concepts. The relationships explored through research
often show density as an independent variable to be
manipulated to measure the effects of somethingelse. For
example, to understand the link between energy use,
greenhouse gas emissions and density, researchersvaried
the type of neighbourhood they were using by low- and
highdensities (see Norman, MacLean, & KEnnedy,
2006). Theorists also have investigated the connection
between land value, housing plot size (i.e., a measure of
density) and distance to a Central Business District
(CBD),showing that, with increasing distance from the
(=BD, the rental gradient declines, population densities
decrease and plot sizes increase(see Alonso, 1964;Mills,
1972; Muth, 1969, all as cited in NHPAU, 2010). In
addition to direct manipulation, scholarshave shown that
density is mediated by a range of variables (e,g,,
perceived control, Langer & Saegert, 1977; Sherrod,
1974; social structure, Baum, Harper, & Valins, 1975;
Baum & Kornan, 1976;Freedman, 1975; Seta, Paulus, &
Schkade, 1976;Sundstrom, 1975; type of activity, Baum
& Valins, 1973; Desor, 1972; Heller, Groff, & Solomon,
1977; physical environment features, Griffit & Veitch,
1971;Worchel & Teddlie, 1976): he followingsections
illustratesome of the many relationshipsbetween density
and different variables.
5.1. Housing afiordability and density
A negative correlation exists between higher
densities and housing affordability (Alexander &
There is little evidence to suggest that physical density is dincfly
Tomalty, 2002; Dave, 2010), implying that consumers
prefer lower density neighbourhoods. These neighbour-
hoods also are where the cost is lower to purchase the
cheapest dwellings (Burton, 2000a). However, NHPAU
(2010) found that low-density areas were not affordable
in comparison to mediumdensity areas, and that both
low-density, detached dwelling-dominant areas and
high-density, flatdominant areas attracted a premium
over medium-density, semidetached and terraced
houses. Residents also were willing to pay less for
houses in neighbourhoods that were dense and
contained more commercial uses and multi-family
homes (i.e., flats); this is contrary to places in Hong
Kong and Singapore where high land values and
restricted space dictate high-density living that is both
high-amenity and high-value and, therefore, results in
slow turnover rates in these areas (Smith, 1984).
Furthermore, residents preferred paying premiums
for houses in neighbourhoods that possessed more New
Urbanist features (e.g., more internally connective
street networks, more blocks, more street miles, better
pedestrian accessibility commercial uses, more evenly
distributed mixed land uses in the neighbourhood and
better proximity to operating light rail stations, Song &
Knaap, 2003). The authors added that proximity to
multi-family residential units can depress the prices of
single-family housing and that singlefamily housing
was adversely affected by dwelling unit density, but not
population density (Song & Knaap, 2003, 2004).
Finally, Aurand (2010) suggests that neighbourhoods
with greater dwellings densities and affordable
housing types are more likely to have more affordable
rental units than low-density neighbourhoods with
single-family dwellings.
5.2. Dwelling type, density and mental well-being
Individuals living in high-density dwellings, espe-
cially those residing with people who art not part of the
same family, tend to develop higher levels of emotional
illnesses, hostility (Mitchell, 1971) and neuroticism
(Bagley, 1974) than individuals living in lower density
dwellings. Conversely, Bwton (2000a) found that living
in flats and terraces is positive for mental health,
particularly in terms of lower death rates. For children,
high-density living will be tolerated more if: they live in
smaller, detached dwellings; they have designated play
space or a room of their own (Wachs & Gruen, 1982);
the dwelling is designed to minimise controllable social
interactions (Fiaum & Valins, 1977, 1979); and floor
plan layouts provide better room separation @vans,
Lepore, & Schroeder, 1996).
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss
5.3. Privacy, community and density
According to a study of diverse housing schemes in
the UK,the most successful high-density developments
were those in which privacy and community were
viewed as complementary parts of a larger whole. With
respect to privacy, the most common issues were noise
passing horizontally through party walls, neighbours
hearing noise from next door and feeling anxious about
being overheard (Mulholland Research & Consulting,
2003). Other researchers have added to this list, citing
the size of private outdoor space in the front of
dwellings and the number of bedrooms (Lindsay et al..
2010). To somewhat counter these problems, a cross-
section of different households said that having private,
outdoor space was vital and seen as a safety valve for
preserving peace within a development (Mulholland
Research & Consulting, 2003). More important to
achieving satisfaction with respect to privacy, though,
are people's subjective evaluation of the physical
conditions of spaces as well as the relationship between
people within a setting (Chan, 1998).
In terms of community, it was felt that having a strong
community spirit was key to living in a successful, high-
density development. This encompassed community
organisation and core, shared values. Skilful design and
efficient management also helped to meet the diverse
needs of different households, keep peace amongst
residents and ensure individual household privacy
(Mulholland Research & Consulting, 2003).
5.4. Crowding, ddensity and (mental and physical)
well-being
Crowding is believed to have substantial negative
effects on social relations (Baum & Paulus, 1987) and
psychological health (T3aurn & Paulus, 1987; Edwards
et al,, 1990; Evans, Palsane, Lepore, & Martin, 1989;
iGabe & Williams, 1987;Cove & Hughes, 1983; Lepore,
'Evans, & Palsane, 1991). Some researchers have
indicated that personal control is important in situations
involving crowding, and that possessing perceived or
actual control over high density may help to alleviate
some of the negative efforts to exert control (Baum,
Aiello, & Calesnick, 1978; Rodin, 1976).' Moreover, it
An example of using p i v e d control over high density is for a
person to think that Wshe can object to a planning application for a
highdensity building in hidher erea. An example of using actual
coniml over high density is for a person to write planning policy that
would limit highdensity in hidher area.
has been found that people who have a more external
locus of control feel more crowded in dense situations
than people with a more internal local of control (Duke
& Nowicki, 1972; McCallum, Rusbult, Hong, Walden,
& Schopler, 1979, all as cited in Walden, Nelson, &
Smith, 1981). Finally, the nature of the interpersonal
relationships between people sharing space exerts a
powerful influence on their control of the environment
(i.e., positive interpersonal relationships lead to less
concern about crowding, fewer control-related pro-
blems and a greater perception of control-related
territoriality) (Gormley & Aiello. 1982). Social con-
straints and spatial restraints affect how they interact
with one another (Taylor, 1981).
Amongst adults, a perceived lack of privacy in the
home due to crowding is significantly associated with
psychological distress (Fuller, Edwards, Sermsri, &
Vorakitphokatorn, 1993). and a decrement in quality of
family life (with male and firstborn and older children
affected most by housing crowding in terms of health;
females were most affected in terms of education)
(Booth, 1976). However, those in more crowded homes
suffer less psychological distress when the dwelling unit
has more 'depth' (i.e. there are more interconnected
spaces) (Evansetal., 1996).Furthermore, betweenadults
and children, tension increases with residential crowding
and can lead to a greater sense of helplessness amongst
children (Evans, Lepore, Shejwal, & Palsane, 1998).
Finally, residents living in larger and less-crowded
dwellings are more likely to want to stay in their home
and neighbourhood, versus those living in dwellings that
are smaller and more crowded (Dave, 2010).
With regard to gender differencesand crowding, it has
been found that females react positively to crowding
whereas males react more negatively (Freedman, Levy,
Buchanan, & Price, 1972; Stokols, Rall, Pinner, &
Schopler, 1973), possibly because females are more
likely to commiserate with each other than males in high-
density situations (Epstein & Karlin, 1975). However,
Proshansky, Ittelson, & Rivlin (1976) counter this
argument by saying that women are more susceptible
to crowding effects because there is a perceived loss of
tenitorial control. Regoeczi (2008) discovered that
women in crowded homes are more likely to be
depressed, whereas men report higher levels of with-
drawal or both withdrawal and aggression. Another study
found significant correlations between lightness and
perceived room size for both genders, although there
were only marginal effects for males (Schiffenbauer,
Brown, Perry, Shulack, & Zanzola, 1977). Moreover,
some research in the UK has shown that women aged 25-
45 in London suffered more psychological distress in
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progms in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
crowded dwellings than any other demographic (Gabe &
Williams, 1987).Finally, studiesconducted with students
in university halls of residence have shown that males in
double rooms felt more crowded than females in double
rooms. Howevea, males in triple rooms felt no more
crowded than did females in triple rooms. Nonetheless,
males in both conditions tended to feel fairly crowded
and spent considerably less time in their rooms than did
other students. Females living in triple rooms, on the
other hand, did not respond negatively and may have
reacted positively to the higher density threeperson
rooms (Walden et al., 1981).
When chronically exposed to both crowded home
settings and child care centres, children are likely to
experience increases in behavioural disturbances, the
more so than when exposed to a single crowded setting
(Maxwell. 1996). Students living in crowded university
accommodation (i.e. three students in a two-bed room)
reported feeling more stressed and disappointed
(Karlin, Epstein, & Aiello, 1978; Valins & Baum,
1973), and more negative and less satisfied (Gormley &
Aiello, 1982), than students living in less crowded
accommodation. Students also living in "triples" who
perceived the door andor the window of their room to
be part of their territory felt less crowded than students
who did not include these features in their perceptions
of the room (Baron, Mandel, Adams, & Griffen, 1976).
Corridor-designed, as opposed to suite-designed,
accommodation led to students feeling more stressed,
complaining more about unwanted social interactions
and being hostile and withdrawn (Baum & Valins,
1977). Once the university accommodation was re-
designed, the negative effects of crowding were
attenuated (Baum & Davis, 1980).
With regard to crowding and the urban-suburban
divide, some research has shown that students who
come from suburban areas felt significantly more
crowded than did students from either rural or urban
areas. One reason for this finding could be that
suburbanites place more importance on open space
than do urban or rural inhabitants. The authors
concluded that perhaps people living in the suburbs
may be more susceptibleto the effects of higherdensity
living conditions (Walden et al., 1981).
In terms of density, individuals living in conurbations
and higher-density areas report higher levels of all types
of psycho-physiological symptoms (Social and Com-
munity Planning Research, 1978, as cited in Halpem,
1995), including stress, anxiety (Brain, 1984; Dave,
2010; Freeman, 1984, Tamopolsky & Clark, 1984), risk
of hospitalisation for schimphrenia (Weiser et al., 2007).
social alienation (Borden, 1997; see also Simmel, 1950),
aggression and increased senseof physical and emotional
vulnerability (Brain, 1984, Freeman, 1984). It also has
been shown that the level of casual neighbouring
decreases in high-density census tracts (Baldassare,
1977). This echoes the findings of Schmidt, Goldman, &
Feimer (1979), who showed that the achievement of
adequate privacy was consistently related highly with
feelings of crowding at the residential, neighbourhood
and city scales. Furthermore, the poorest members of
higherdensity communities appear to be most affected,
as they experience greater levels of worry and unhappi-
ness at a superficial level than others (Mitchell, 1971).
However, when community densities are low (one
standard deviation below the average), increases in
household density produce slight decreases in psych*
logical stress (G6mez-Jacinto & Hombrados-Mendieta,
2002). Social hassles in the home are another problem:
when combined with highdensity households, Amer-
icans and Indians suffered greater psychological stress
than their low-density household counterparts (Lepore
et al., 1991).
In terms of physiological disease, one group of
scholars discovered that dwelling and building fea-
tures-operationalised as dwellings in taller and newer
buildings with lower resale value and dwellings on
blocks with high residential density-and crowding
were associated with tuberculosis occurrence (Wanyeki
et al., 2006). In contrast, another group of researchers
have found that the longer a person has lived in a dense,
urban settlement, the more resistant they are to
intracellular pathogens, which includes tuberculosis
(Barnes, Duda, Pybus, & Thomas, 2010).
5.5. Dissatisfaction, neighbourhood problems,
perceived quality and densiry
Whilst more compact (i.e., dense) urban forms-and
their associated housing types (e.g., multi-family
housing, high-rise flats)--generally foster better access
to services (Button, 2000a; Dave, 2010; Raman, 2010;
Walton, Murray, & Thornas, 2008),more opportunitiesto
socialise (Raman, 2010; Walton et al., 2008) and greater
social equity (Burton, 2000b), they also rate somewhat
badly on dissatisfaction at the neighbourhood leveL6
Even worse, dense urban forms are more strongly
In contrast, Howley et al. (2009) believe that residential dissstis-
faction in dense areas could be connectedto a range of issues, such as
noise, traffic, mvironmental quality, lack of community involvement,
and a puciv of services and facilities. rather than high density being
the sole problem.
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss

associated with the occurrence of neighbourhood included poor materials and workmanship, small
problems, such as crime (Bramley & Power, 2009) cramped rooms (especially the kitchens), sound
and maintenance by neighbours (Walton et al., 2008); transmission, inadequate storage space, traffic noise,
lower quality of life (Cramer, Torgersen, & Kringlen, lack of on-street parking and crime (DOE,1992b, 1993;
2004, as cited in Walton et al., 2008); an increase in Goodchild, 1984, 1985, 1994).
negative life events, a reduced perception of neighbour-
hood quality (Walton et al., 2008); less friendliness
5.6. Hclrnan diversity and density
towards strangers (Amato, 1980); less likeability of
neighbours (Verbrugge & Taylor, 1976, 1980)'; less
People living in the poorest socioeconomic status
social interaction and satisfaction with open spaces and
areas had much more exposure to fast food outlets
parks within the locality (Dave, 2010); less access to
(Reidpath, Burns, G&, Mahoney, & Townsend,
green-space (Burton. 2000a); low height-@space ratios;
2002), and both fast food restaurants and high-l~affic
low artificial light levels; low traffic levels; private
areas (Hurvitz, Moudon, Rehm, Streichert, & Drew-
gardens and entrances; the absence of non-residential
nowski, 20091, than people in the wealthiest areas.
uses nearby; social homogeneity (Goodchild, 1985);
Those living in high, urban density neighbourhoods also
more noise, including noise from dwellings and busy
earned less than those living in lower density
roads and roadjunctions (Lindsay et al., 2010; Oyedepo
neighbouhoods (Wheeler, 2W), and experienced
& Saadu, 20 10), and; high child density (DETR, 1998).
more psychological strain, particularly if people
The reverse also is true: neighbou&oods with larger
thought they were different from their neighbours
dwellings are perceived to be more attractive, to have
(Gillis, 1983). However, it was found that students
better maintenance and infrastructure and better parking
educated in the densest urban areas could obtain better
facilities (Dave, 2010). However, neighbourhood demo-
graphics and soci~economic status may be more
SATS and NVQ scores than their cohorts educated in
the least dense urban areas (Gibbons & Silva, 2008).
powerful predictors of the outcomes thm is urban form
Furthermore, low-income groups were less segregated
(Bramley & Power, 2009;DETR, 1998). Perceptions of
in cities with a high proportion of high-density
density also play a crucial role in understanding the
dwellings (Burton, 2000a), creating a more diversity
predictors of such studies (Dave, 2011).
across cities.
Other studies have found similar results. An
Confirming Wih's (1938) theory of that demo-
evaluation of the environmentalquality of SO residential
graphic diversity is a function of population size and
areas in London revealed that the majority of areas
density, Hall and Lee (2010) found that suburban
perceived as above average were either above or below
diversity increases with population size and density.
the recommended density range of 125-250 hrh. Only
The authors also found that suburban diversity varies
17% of the study areas that were pe~eivedas above
with metropolitan, population and suburban size
average fell within the density range (Llewelyn-Davies
as well as distance and dominance from the central
et al., 1994). These findings are corroborated by
city.
research in Finland, which showed a positive relation-
ship between dwelling density and environmental
quality, but at density ranges below 100 dwellings 5.7. Streets with shops, density and mental
per hectare and above 190 dwellings per hectare wellbeing
(Broberg & Kyttii, 2010). A survey of private-sector flat
conversions in London found that many of the Fleming, Baum, and Weiss (1987) discovered that
occupants wanted to move. The main complaints residents of streets with shops were more stressed, had
lower perceptions of control and had less ability to
regulate social interaction than were residents of streets
" This tincling is commensurate with Granovener (1973). who without shops. The stress was related to externally
suggested that smng ties between neighbours may promote l& derived crowding. That is, residents of streets with
cohesion, yet overall hgmentation, and rhat wealc tics m indispm- shops reported having more problems with social
sible for community integration. Hawever. Verbmgge and Taylor density and lower perceived control outside their homes
(1976, 1980) also found that inutasing ncighboUmood density was than did residents of no-shop streets. Baum et al. (1978)
positively associated with recognising other residents and having
one's neighbows as friends, and increasing household density was also found that residents who lived on streets with shops
positively associated with spending more leisure time with household were less likely to interact with others in neighbourhood
members and relying on them more when ill. spaces and complained more about unwanted contact.
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
5.8. Crime and density
According to Newman (1973), crime should be
lower in low-density, single-use environments with
restricted access to strangers. However, other scholars
have not found a relationship between crime and density
(see Harries, 2006; Haughey, 2005; Li & Rainwater,
2006, all as cited in Hillier & Sahbaz, 2009), whereas
others have found the opposite effect. For example,
Hillier and Sahbaz (2009) found that there is a decrease
in residential burglary with increased dwelling and
population density and that higher ground-level dwell-
ing and population densities reduce risk, but above-
ground density may lead to an increase. This linding is
echoed by Roncek (1981), who also found lower
personal and property crime levels when area1 density
increased. Finally, Burton (2000a) suggests that average
city crime rates are related to gross density measures,
which implies a closer connection with city size than
with density.
5.9. Alcoholism and density
Youth living in areas with higher densities of shops
selling alcohol had higher initial levels of drinking and
excessive drinking, versus youth living in areas with
lower densities of shops selling alcohol (Chen, Grube,
& Gruenewald, 2009). Similar results were found with
alcohol advertising hoardings and adults: with every
one unit increase in average exposure to advertisements,
there was a 13% greater chance of an adult being a
problem drinker (Kwate & Meyer, 2009). However, in
the case of youths, gmwth in drinking and excessive
drinking occurred more rapidly in areas with lower
alcohol outlet densities. In addition, the above relation-
ships with youths were mediated by friends who had
access to vehicles (Chen et al., 2009).
5.10. BmwnJield R-development and densiry
Brownfield redevelopment is mostly seen as a
positive step towards increasing densities in cities (see
PPG3, DCLG, 2006). However, problems have been
identified that call into question the notion that all
brownfield development is good development. Some
scholars have pointed out that, whilst initial increases in
net residential density reduce the amount of residential
land needed to accommodate dwellings, successive
increases produce less and less land savings (DETR,
1998). Moreover, in order to sustain brownfield
development, investment needs to be secured and
infrastructure needs to be in-place first to allow for a
good tenure mix and housing choice (DETR,1998;
Dixon, Pocock, & Waters, 2006). In the case of
idkastructure, a lack of existing facilities and transit
hubs and links means that raising densities may be
irrelevant-and even be damaging in some cases-
because the local context has not been considered
properly (DETR, 1998). Furthermore, when a high-
density area in a city centre becomes too successful,
some people (e.g., families, those requiring affordable
housing) become priced out of the market. This often
leaves only those who can afford to buy or let 1- and 2-
bedroom flats to enjoy the benefits of city centre living
(Dixon et al.. 2006). In the US, it also is the case that
those living in multi-family units pay more local
property taxes than do those living in owner-occupied
dwellings outside city centres. This differential is in
addition to the mortgage interest deductions given to
homeowners to reduce their national taxes (Smith, 30
November 2010).
5.l l . Biodiversity and density
Studies on the relationship between biodiversity and
density have tended to focus on species density as it
relates to urban areas, or to the impact of higher urban
densities on biodiversity. Regarding the former,
research by Aurora, Simpson, Small, & Bender
(2009) found that the density and vertical structures
of the woody plant community in residential neighbour-
hoods were moderately to strongly correlated with
species richness, species diversity and bird community
evenness. This finding builds on work by Mills,
Dunning, & Bates (1989), which showed that densities
of exotic, territorial and non-territorial native bird
species were correlated with the volume of exotic plants
and that housing density was a less important predictor
of bird diversity than were the characteristics of the
vegetation at the site. Furthermore, in their study of
dependence, territoriality and divisibility of resources
amongst birds, Both and Visser (2003) discovered that
the optimal territory size is small when there is a low
density of nest sizes. When nest size density is relative
large, however, the optimal territory size is high and
territories are nearby. If there is competition for nest
sites, densitydependent exclusion is expected through
territoriality and not density-dependent reproduction.
When competition is for food, though,density-density
reproduction is expected. Finally, in their study about
the density of pores found in leaves and stems, used for
gas exchange (i.e., stomatal density), Woodward and
Kelly (1995) concluded that stomatal density decreased
by 14.3% when CO2 increased. This has important
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
implications for climate change and biodiversity. In the
absence of evidence, the DETR (1998) states that
increasing the density of development (in terms of its
footprint) may reduce opportunities for biodiversity.
However, they caution that the biodiversity on soon-to-
be developed land will be lost regardless of the number
of dwellings on the site and that development coverage
and the use of space between buildings are more
important variables to consider.
At the urban scale, more densely urbanised areas
have been found to possess poorer ecosystem quality
than lower density environments, evidenced by less
green-space and garden coverage (Gaston, Warren.
Thompson, & Smith, 2005; Loram, Warren, & Gaston,
2008; Tratalos, Fuller, Warren, Davies, Br. Gaston,
2007), more fragmented habitant patches (Davis, 1978;
Gaston et al.. 2005; Niemelii, 1999%1999b; Wood &
Pullin, 2002), smaller habitat patch sizes (Tratalos et al.,
12007), greater predicted runoff, higher predicted
maximum temperatures, lower predicted carbon seques-
tration (i.e., less tree cover) (Bonan, 2000; Henry &
Dicks, 1987; Rebele, 1994; Tratalos et al., 2007), more
frequent habitat disturbances (Rekle, 1994) and
changes in the composition of species, both by reducing
richness in one species and increasing richness in other
species (McIntyre, Rango, Fagan, & Faeth, 2001). In
terms of domestic (i.e., private) garden coverage,
Gaston et al. (2005) argue that higher urban densities
will overburden a smaller proportion of people who still
have green space to provide ponds, nest boxes, trees and
so forth to maintain or enhance biodiversity. Loram
et al. (2008) suggest, therefore., that new, high-density
housing must have suitable green-space provision (e.g.,
hedges, tall shrubs) to offset the losses cmntly being
experienced for public and private green-space. Not
only must suitable green-space be provided, it must be
accessible, especially to those most vulnerable in the
community (e.g., the poor, the elderly) (Barbosa et al.,
2007).
5.12. Pollutants and density
According to Hatt, Fletcher, Walsh, & Taylor (2004),
urbanisationdperationalised as poor drainage and
quantity of impervious surfaces-is the most likely
factor in the degradation of stream water quality. Dave
(2010) echoes these sentiments in relation to air and
water pollution. In addition, a strong positive relation-
ship was found between urban density and electrical
conductivity in streams as well as between septic tank
density and NO, concentrations (Hatt et al., 2004). This
is reaffirmed in findings from Ham, Kobori, & Takasago
(2009), who found that higher population densities were
significantly related to colifom bacteria concentrations
in nearby river basins. Moreover, Ewen, Anagnostpou-
lou, & Ward (2009) found that higher traffic densities
were associated with an increased release of heavy
metals into residential or commercial areas.
5.13. Temperature, air flow, buildings and density
Due to heat being absorbed from road and building
surfaces, built-up areas containing tall buildings packed
closely together are considerably warmer at night than
in rural areas. This is known as the 'urban heat island'
effect and is correlated with urban density (seeCoutts,
Beringer, & Tapper, 2007; Hui, 2001; Oke, 1987, as
cited in Skinner, 2006). Increases in urban density also
may reduce air flows in streets and, thus, natural
ventilation in buildings (Givoni, 1989, as cited in
Skinner, 2006; Givoni, 1998, as cited in Hui, 2001), and
could negate the behaviour of sky views and altitude in
allowing vegetation to lower outdoor temperatures
(Giridharan, Lau, Ganesan, & Givoni, 2008). These
issues may extend seasonal exposure to unfavourable
climatic conditions (Coutts, Beringer, & Tapper, 2007),
and may exacerbate urban stormwater runoff because
more surface area may be pervious (Skinner, 2006).
Having a greater density of foliage, though, has been
shown to contribute to surfacesoil cooling (Lin & Lin,
2010).
5.14. Energy use and density
Cities are usually seen as more energy efficient than
surrounding areas. Burchell and Listokin (1982, as cited
in Hui, 2001) suggest the following reasons:
Urban buildings consume less energy because of their
density and compactness.
Cities benefit from good transportation and commut-
ing travel.
Cities can easily capitalise from more efficient energy
systems.
m High-density developmentsand mixed land uses may
contribute to better efficiency.
Naess (1997, as cited in Holden & Norland, 2005)
also offers some factors that may contribute to reducing
energy use per capita in cities, mostly concentrating on
high densities and compactness:
Having a high density within each residential area.
Ensuring a high population for cities.
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progms in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
Creating a centralised settlement within cities, similar
to the idea of a density gradient, with a higher density
in the city centre and lower densities on the fringe.
Having a centralised workplace location.
Making parking a low priority at workplaces.
m Decentralising concentration at the regional level.
The above implies that a relationship exists between
energy use and urban form, extending to density (m.
1990, Jenks et al., 1996; Kamal-Chaoui & Robert,
2009). For example, Japan's urban population is five
times as dense as Canada's urban density, with the
former consuming 40% less electricity than the latter
(Kamal-Chaoui & Robert, 2009). Furthermore, higher
densities encourage the introduction of sustainable
technologies that are more energy efficient (e.g., CHP)
(Williams, 2000) and more recycling of household
waste pave, 2010). Lowdensity suburban develop
ments are also more intensive on a per capita basis in
terms of energy and greenhouse gases than are higher-
density urban developments (DETR, 1998; Norman
et al., 2006).' Moreover, high-density layouts may
facilitate thermal exchanges between buildings, thus
helping retain warmth (Gaia Planning, 1996, as cited in
DETR, 1998). However, the benefits of reduced heat
loss need to balanced with the disadvantagesof reduced
solar and daylight availability (Steemers, 2003). An
additional finding from Hong Kong illustrates that a
compact urban form with vertical zoning via multi-level
and multi-functional clusters may be an energy-efficient
option for high-density cities (Hui, 2001). finally, in the
United States, Glaeser and Kahn (2008, as cited in
Salon, Sperling, Meier, Murphy, Gorham, & B m t t ,
2010) discovered that older, denser cities in the north-
east have significantly lower per capita emissions than
do northeastern suburbs. Lower carbon emissions also
are evident in urban areas that become denser and in
which residents rely ever more on public transportation
(Kamal-Chaoui & Robert, 2009).
5.15. Businesses, business location and density
Concentrating people and businesses together in
dense distributions is seen by some as a positive way to
improve employment opportunities (Dave. 20 10) and
economic performance and increase productivity in
cities (Jacobs, 1961; Kamal-Chaoui & Robert, 2009,
When the unit of analysis is changed-per unit of living space,
rather than per capita-the strength of the relationship diminishes
(Norman et al.. ul06).
Webber & Athey, 2007). This productivity may occur
through increased rates of invention (Carlino, Chatter-
jee, & Hunt, 2007), innovation and creativity (Knudsen,
Florida, Gates, & Stolarick, 2007) andtor economic
provision of new technology (Mayor of London, 2008)?
Concentration also helps people and organisations to
interact with one another and reduces the friction,
energy and effort needed to make and maintain those
interactions (Florida, 8 September 2010). This is true
for certain kinds of people, as Gordon and Ikeda (201l)
learned when they discovered that 'creatives"i.e.,
people in arts, design, entertainment, sports and media)
preferred to move to dense neighbourhoods in small,
high-income metropolitan regions, such as New
England or the Pacific. However, the authors also
suggest that 'creatives' are quite idiosyncratic in their
living choices, selecting both low-density (e.g., Silicon
Valley) and high-density (e.g., Manhattan) places.
Indeed, the density of a variety of fundamental factors,
including people, technology and nature, reflects the
processes, money and actors that keep the city alive and
breathing (Rao, 2007). Such agglomeration economies
provide tradeoffs for people between lower travel cost
or distance on the one hand and the cost of space (e.g.,
house prices, rents, land values) on the other (Clark,
1951, as cited in Batty, 2008). Yet in some places,
clustering employment together has not had a sig-
nificant impact on population density even though some
urban policies have advocated job centralisation
(Baumont, Ertur, & Le Gallo, 2004). Some scholars
also have pointed out that, particularly in fast-growing
areas of world-leading countries, employment may
decentralise faster than population (Lj, 2010),1° In
addition, where agglomeration economies are located is
important, and aquick scan of high-density city skylines
does not necessarily indicate economic performance. In
many large, declining city centres, for example, tall
buildings that once housed many different functions
may be vacant now, revealing the true economic health
of these places (Batty, Besussi, Maat, & Harts, 2003).
Moreover, the skill level of the population is a crucial
However, Forman et al. (2005)argue that Intemet participation by
h s is more likely in rural vmus dtnse. urban amas because the
marginal nturn from the use of Internet communicationscapabilities
is higher in the former. Nonetheless, costs to enhance the Internet me
lower in urban, versus rural, areas.
'O Li (2010) also found that male employment decentralks faster
than female employment, and rapid employment and population
decentralisation bccurred for low-income earners (v. high-income
earners who experienced a slight centralisation trend) and for low-
er-status occupations (v. managerial and professional workers).
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
factor: the correlation between productivity per worker
and metropolitan area population is strongest in cities
with higher levels of skills and virtually non-existent for
metropolitan areas with a less skilled population. Thus,
urban density plays an important role because "proxi-
mity spreads knowledge, which either makes workers
more skilled or entrepreneurs more productive"
(Glaeser & Resseger, 2010, p. 221). Yet in poorer
countries with high population densities and greater
tourism numbers, the issue of proximity and agglom-
eration is overshadowed by susceptibility to global
spillover effects. That is, poorer countries have less
power to control the global spillover process and are
often at the mercy of larger countries with more
economic wealth and exportingpower (Van Everdingen,
Fok, & Stremersch, 2009).
5.16. Government expenditure and density
In their study of 487 US municipal governments and
their spending, Holcombe and Williams (2008) dis-
covered that there was no statistically significant
relationship between per capita total government
expenditures and operational expenditures for cities
smaller than 500,000. For larger cities, higher popula-
tion density was related to higher per capita government
expenditures, which confirms earlier research, suggest-
ing that there is a relationship between higher
population density and higher per capita government
costs (see Cox & Utt, 2004; Ladd, 1992), particularly
service costs (LSE, 2006).11 Moreover, infrastructure
expenditures declined with increases in population
density for cities smaller than 500,000 whereas
expenditures on services increased with population
density for cities larger than 500,000. In their
conclusions, the authors stated that policies advocating
increases in population density would not reduce per
capita government expenditures; in fact, in cities larger
than 500,000, such policies would result in higher per
capita government expenditures.
5.l 7. Physical activity and density
Dense areas promote travel walking whilst less-
connected larger blocks promote leisure walking with
no effect on total physical activity (Forsyth, O a k ,
It also contradicts earlier research that has shown a cost savings
from higher deasity schemes (Litman. 2004, as cited in Holcombe &
WiIliams, 2008) and an increase in government c m when growth
sprawls, ratherthan when it is managed (Bumhell& Mukherji, 2003).
Schmitz, & Hearst, 2007; Forsyth, Hearst, Oakes, &
Schmitz, 2008; Oakes, Forsyth, & Schmitz, 2007). In
contrast, Xu et al. (2010) found that there was a
significant negative association between recreational
physical activity time for students from the highest,
versus the lowest, densities. Furthermore, adolescents
who lived in neighbourhoods with an increasing density
of small and large grocery stores in a 1600 m range had
more percent body fat than adolescents living in other
areas. They were also more likely to have higher systolic
blood pressure as the number of transit stops in their area
decreased (Dengel, HearSt. Harmon, Fomyth, & Lytle,
2009). Nonetheless, adults tended to walk more minutes
per week when they perceived good access to shops,
neighbourhoods and pavements and the residential
density was high (Inoue et al., 2009).
5.18. Trrel demandbehaviour and densiry
Within the transportation field, the relationship
between travel demand/behaviour, urban form (density
being one aspect of urban form) and associated energy
consumption has been debated for many years (see
Levinson & Wynn, 1963, as cited in Van Acker &
Witlox, 2010). Some scholars have attempted to
demonstrate a causal linkage between the three
variables, with studies revealing, amongst other things:
Per-capita energy consumption increases as density
decreases (Newman & Kenworthy, 1991: Owens,
1987; Rickaby, 1987, both as cited in Frank & Pivo,
1994).
Population and employment density have the greatest
impacts on travel behaviour (Cervero, 1988, as cited
in Frank & Pivo, 1994; Newman & Kenworthy, 1989;
Pushkarev & Zupan, 1976; Spillar, 1989,both as cited
in Frank & Pivo, 1994).
Cities with higher urban densitieswere less dependent
on private vehicles for travel and had more viable
public transport systems (Alexander & Tomalty,
2002; Dave, 2010; Kenworthy & Laube, 1999;
Newman & Kenworthy, 1989;-smith, 1984). Con-
versely, those living in lower density communities
relied more on private vehicles and commuted longer
distances to work (Alexander & Tomalty, 2002).
The higher the net population density, the more likely
that disadvantaged groups will use public transporta-
tion, at least for travel to work Additionally, in low-
dwelling density cities, disadvantaged groups are
more likely to walk or cycle to work (Burton, 2000a).
The higher the urban densities, the more the following
are reduced: car use, energy consumptmn (Brownstone
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progrws in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
& Golob, 2009; Camagni, Gibelli, & Rigamonti,
2002), car ownership and the number of trips (Camagni
et al., 2002), particularly long-distance suburban to
inner-city commutes (Li, 2010).
The higher the urban densities, the greater the
incidence of pedestrian casualties, although the
casualty rate decreases for the most extremely dense
wards (Graham & Glaister, 2003)
Density has a significant impact on mode choice
(Cervero, 1988; Meyer, Kain, & Wohl, 1965;
Pushkarev & Zupan, 1976; Pushkarev, Zupan, &
Cumella, 1982, all as cited in Frank & Pivo, 1994).
m As density increases, households with one or more
vehicles produce fewer trips whereas zero-car house-
holds produce more trips (Deutschman & Jaschik,
1968, as cited in Frank & Pivo, 1994).
m Work-live policies may not provide the relief from
congestion and air pollution that is needed (Downs,
1991; Guiliano, 1991, both as cited in Frank & Pivo,
1994).
m Mixing land uses at the end of an employment trip has
been found to reduce travel demand (Cervero, 1988,
as cited in Frank & Pivo, 1994).
m Population density and travel distance are related such
that areas of 50 persons per hectare and towns of over
250,000 people consistently travel the least in terms of
total distance across all travel modes (DETR, 1998).
Higher densities are associated with higher levels of
congestion (Schwanen, Dieleman, & Dijst, 2004, as
cited in Van Aclcer & Witlox. 2010).
m The higher the densities, the more efficient the
transport infrastructure(Alexander& Tomalty, 2002).
m Light rail can lead to higher densities (Jlmdy, 2005,
as cited in Salon et al., 2010).
Increasing dwelling densities by at least 10% is
associated with 2-3.56 decreases in vehicle miles
travelled and NOx emissions (Bartholomew, 2007;
Stone, Mednick, Holloway, & Spak. 2007).
Other scholars have attempted to look deeper into
this relationship to find moderating or mediating
factors. They have tried to show that the relationship
is based more on correlation than causality and that
density may not be a causal factor." The most
prominent research that aligns with this school of
thought has demonstrated that higher densities are
related to higher levels of transit ridership and
parking costs, and lower rates of vehicle ownership.
l* Rather, there may be a host of economic-related variables that
inlluence travel behaviour (Frank & Pivo, 1994).
Further studies have pointed to the benefits of compact,
mixed-use, pedestriau-friendly designs in reducing
vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled per capita as
well as encouraging non-motorised travel (see Cervero
& Kockelman, 1997; Dargay & Hanly, 2004,as cited in
Van Acker & Witlox, 2010; Frank & Pivo, 1994;
Hammadou, Thomas, Verhetsel, & Witlox, 2008;
Kitarnura, Mokhtarian, & Laidet, 1997, both as cited
in Van Acker & Witlox, 2010; Masnavi, 2000; Salon
et al., 2010; Schwanen et al., 2004, as cited in Van
Acker & Witlox, 2010; Souche, 2010; Stead, 2001, as
cited in Van Acker & W~tlox,2010). These findings are
moderated, in part, by variables such as residential
neighbourhoods that are spatially accessible to com-
mercial activities, walking quality, instances of all-way
intersections, on-street parking abutting commercial
premises (Cervero & Kockelman, 1997), the ability to
concentrate movement patterns to favour public
transport (Breheny & Gordon, 1996, as cited in DETR,
1998), user cost of a car and of public transportation
(Souche, 2010), car stock and distance travelled by car
(V. fuel consumption per kilometre) (Karathodorou,
Graham, & Noland, 2010) and floor space and
employment (Smith, 1984). Moreover, Small and
Verhoef (2007) believe that decisions about travel are
influenced by the type of activity (e.g., leisure, business)
and the density of buildings. In addition, some studies of
non-urban fonn features have discovered that cost and
demographics are underlying factors that explain the
relationship between intensity of development and
travel behaviour (Frank & Pivo, 1994; Smith, 1984).
Another strand of research in this area has explored
the distinction between work and leisure travel. Some
researchers have claimed that people living in high-
density city centres, versus those living in low-density
areas, will travel out-of-town on weekends to compen-
sate for the lack of access to a private garden (e.g.,
Kennedy, 1995; Vilhelmson, 1990, both as cited in
Holden & Norland, 2005). Findings such as t h w have
lead to a 'hypothesis of opportunity', which states that
the time and money people save when travelling shorter
distances during daily commutesmay be used for longer
distance, leisure-time travel (HoIden & Norland, 2005).
Related researchxploring work and leisure walking
as it pertains to neighbourhood walkability-has shown
that street connectivity and proximity to retail are
positively associated with walking for transport, but not
walking for recreation. The relationship is also stronger
for weekly Erequency than for weekly minutes of
walking, as more-walkable neighbourhoods required
shorter walking trips to reach destinations than did less-
walkable neighbourhoods (Owen et al., 2007).
 A further area of research involves the use of future density (e.g., transportation), the types(s) of density
scenarios planning in making transportation-related examined (e.g., population density), the methods used
decisions. A major US regional centre undertook a (e.g., interviews) and place where the study was
study using scenarios as a way to better understand undertaken (e.g., Melbourne, Australia), and the
uncertainties so that transportation decisions made findings as they relate to density.
today would be resilient, no matter what the future holds To help make sense of the 75 studies in a meaningful
(Moss et al., 2000; Schwartz, 1996). Through an way, a taxonomy of density was created, which is
analysis of six scenarios involving different urban described in the next section.
footprints, dwelling densities and transport investment
priorities (e.g., increasing roadways, additional rail and
6. A taxonomy of density
bus rapid transit), the organisation was able to conclude
that the most favourable outcome involved a shift
A taxonomy classifies information in an ordered
towards a lower urban footprint, higher dwelling
manner to indicate relationships as well as to bring
densities and more transit use and better transit pricing.
clarity to complex issues. The authors decided that a
Due to the unfeasibility of moving from the current
taxonomy of density could be useful for organising the
situation to this scenario, however, the organisation was
different types of densities that are researched and used
able to settle on another scenario that provided a
in everyday practice, both at a generic level (e.g.,
'middleground', with moderate increases in the urban
population density) and at more specific levels (e.g.,
footprint increased, dwelling densities and the existing
organisational density, business density).
roadway network (Locantore, Montago, Rudy, &
Starting from the top tier of the taxonomy in Fig. 1,
Sabina, 2009).
the definition of density is given: a number of units in a
A final area of research has considered density as it
given area.Two keywords from the definition, units and
relates to pedestrian and traffic flows. A well-
area, were identified, forming the first tier. Area was
documented relationship exists between density and
divided into space and scale (second tier), and further
walking speeds: that is, the prevailing density of
sub-divided into measurement units of spaces (e.g.,
pedestrians has a significant effect on individuals'
square mile, hectare) and a range of scales (e.g.,
wallcing speeds (see Fruin, 1971; Henderson, 1971, as
building, neighbourhood) (fourth tier). The subdivision
cited in Willis, Gjersoe, Havard, Kerridge, & Kukla,
of units from the first tier was created by the authors as
2004; Maeda et al., 2005).
well as nine experts on density and the built
environment who worked with authors to brainstorm
5.19. Table of density studies
and identify different types of densities that might be
used in everyday practice. This second tier includes
From Sections 5.1-5.18, 75 studies were chosen
natural fom, builtform, static mobile material
based on their relevance to the design of urban
fonn and people (with the latter further dividing into a
environments and whether or not density could be
third tier-individual & social and organisational). The
directly manipulated or found to mediate another
third tier-and the forth tier in the case of people-
relationship. To reiterate how the 75 studies were
contains specific types or examples of density as they
chosen, publications within urban planning, urban
relate to the more general types in the second tier. For
design, the built environment, environmental psychol-
example, under natural form density, one can find the
ogy and sustainability were reviewed in the first
density of forests, lakes and cropland.
instance to better understand density. Snowball refer-
In order to populate the taxonomy with information
encing (i.e., choosing additional publications from
about what types of density were researched in each of
original sources, based on relevance to density and the
the 75 studies from Table 15, a number was assigned to
design of urban environments) and online database
each study, from 1 to 75. Each time a density type was
sampling-using keywords such as 'density', 'urban
mentioned in a study, the corresponding study's number
density', 'design', 'built environment', 'physical envir-
was placed underneath the lowest relevant tier of the
onment and 'urban envir01unent'-then were used to
taxonomy. When all the studies were examined, an
find additional sources. Approximately 250 references
overall picture of the most common density types was
were examined before choosing 75 studies for this
section.
Table 15 contains information from the 75 studies, ''Static fom refers to objects within the built environment that are
summarised in terms of the issues studied alongside not buildings, infmtructure or spaces (e.g., transit stops, waste).
Table 15
Summary of 75 density studies, including methods and findings.
Variables studied with density
Energy use and greenhouse
emissions (dwelling density)
ResencJabsence of shops on
neighbourhoods streets and
crowding (urban density -
assessed by s m l , persons per
unit and p o n s per room)
Rate of invention (employment
density-assessed by
metroblitan area &A) density:
the sum of all establishment-
based employment reported
divided by land area in the
urbanised area of the MA,
urbanised area (UA) density: the
sum of all residency-based
employment reported divided
by land ana in the urbanised
area of the MA)
City size and friendliness
towards strangers (pavement
density)
Travel demand, design and
diversity (population and
employment density)
Methods and place where study undertaken
C- study: life cycle assessment of low- and
high-density neighbourhoods using quantirativt
data {measuring energy use and GHG emissions);
Toronto, Canada
Observation of outdoor spaas; survey of street
behaviour (including measures of socio-
economic status, housing value, average rental
cost, ethnic compoeition, education, age, years
living on the street, prior place of residence.
family size and density); USA
Regression of patents per capita data on
employment density in metropolitan areas (also
includes land area, local market structun and
industrial diversification, share of patents made
by research-intensive industries and trade
secrecy); USA
Investigator, walking along pavements in 11
locations, initiated eye contact, smiled and said
hello. Another investigator recordad participants'
reactions and number of people within 10-foot
radius of the participant; Queensland, Australia
Collection of data for 50 neighbourhoods: field
surveys and regional maps to compile data on
design features of neighbourhoods; field surveys
and census for land use (i.e., population and
employment densities); field surveys, regional
maps and transit schedules for transportation
supply data and; travel surveys for wavel,
personal and household data; San Francisco,
USA
Findings Refennce
Low-density suburban developments are more energy and Norman et al.
GHG intensive on a per capita basis (when unit changed to (2m)
per unit of living space,the significance of the relationshipis
almost nepligent)
The presence of local shop increased use of pavements and Barn et al.
street anas, which interfered with nsidents' ability to (1978)
regulate contact outside their homes; group development and
wnversion of public space to semi-private space were
inhibited by the presence of local shops, small porches and
gardens and close proximity of pavements. which led to
reported increases in crowding; residents who lived on
streets with shops w m less likely to interact with others in
exterior neighbourhood space and wrnplained more
frequently about excessive unwanted contact S
Acity with twice the employment density of another city will Carlino a al. 3
exhibit a patent intensity that is 20% higher (2007) X
3
00
i!
a.
Controlling for pavement density, the larger the city, the
fewer the number of words that the participant used to
respond to the investigator
The effects of the built environment on travel demand are Cuvsro and
modest to moderate, with density e x d n g the strongest Kockelman
influence on personal business trips; residential (1997)
neighbourhoods that were spatially accessible to commercial
activities tended to average less VMT per household; higher
densities, diverse land uses and pedestrian-friendly designs
must cocxist to a certain degree if meaningful transportation
benefits are to accrue
Space, privacy, satisfactionwith
dwelling and crowding (interior
-
dwelling density number of
moms per person and effective
flowspace per person)
Local climate and surface
energy (dwelling density)
Mixed-use and travel mode
(gmsspopulation and
employment density)
Interpersonal relationships and
residential crowding stress
(social, xsidential population
density)
Face-to-face interviews (via a questionnaire) of
414 residents; mjor variables included in the
analyses are: space, housing type, achieved
privacy, satisfaction with living quarters, conflict
with others for space and perceptions of
crowding; Hong Kong
Aerial photography to determine housing
densities and surface characteristics; eddy
wvariance approach to study surface energy
balance; temperature and relative humidity
sensor to study temperature and relative
humidity; Bowen-area technique was usad for
measu~mentsin the rural site; anthropogenic
heat measured using an estimated calculation
from another study-electricity data obtained
from electric company; Melbourne, Australia
Secondary data analysis (from US Census and
Puget Sound finsportation Panel) of household
travel behaviour, demographics, land-use density
and mix; Washington State, USA
Questionnairegiven to students living in halls of
residence; a northeastern university, USA
The space available to individuals does not have a strong effect
on crowding and individual p e p t i o n s of physical space do
not vary significantly across different personal attributes;
conflict with orhen fmspace and achieved privacyintervenein
the relationship between space and crowding; satisfaction with
living quarters is the most important predictor variable of the
feeling of cmwdedness in this study, but it has no direct
relationship with space; subjective feeling of crowddness
may beevokedby objectivephysical conditions,but the effects
are madiated by people's subjectiveevaluation of the physical
conditions otha than space, and the relation of actors within
the setting
A move towards a more compact city with built-up activity Coutts et al.
centres would result in a larger heat storage fraction because (2007)
of changes in the surface characteristics through reduced
albedo and less vegetated cover, but more so through
increased built-up surface area (e.g., H:W ratio); a move
towards a more compact city will extend the seasonal
exposure to unfavourable climatic conditions, with warmer
temperatures expected in rhe shoulder months on either side
of summer. In addition. diurnal exwsure will also increase
with warmer temperatures continuing into the evening.
because of increasing built-up surface area (including walls)
and increased storage
Relationships between employment density, population
density, land-use mix, and transit and walking were
consistently positive for both work and shopping trip; a
dramatic increase in the proportion of public transit and
waking trips wurred as employment density inmased to
more than 75 employees per acre; a significant decrease in
SOV travel also occurred at relatively low densities(between
U ) and 50 employees per acre); population densities need to
exceed 13residents per a m f a changes in mode choice to be
detected
High within-unit residential density was associated with
greatex crowding s m s , less satisfaction with privacy and
Gomrley and
Aiello (1982)
E
greater negativity towards the residential living situation;
crowding stress and privncy are affected by the nature of the
i n t a p e d relationship amongst those sharing a room;the
nature of the interpersonal relationship was found to exm a
powerful influenceon controloverthe residentialenvironment;
crowding stress commonly associated with tripled residential
settings may be mediatedby interpersonalrelationships ( m m
density and the name of the relationshipsamongst roommates
interactively affect thedegreeto whicha resident is bothered by
crowding-tripledroommatesbeing more botheredby crowding
than those in doubled rooms)
Table 15 (Cmtinued)
Variables studied with density
Urban scale, land-use mix and
road pedestrian casualties
(population, employment and
traffic node density)
Drainage infrastructure and
pollutants in small streams (mad
and septic tank density)
Municipal government
expenditures (population
density)
Street conndvity and walking
(neighbourhood population
density)
Methods and place where study undertaken
Use of a spatial model of pedestrian casualties
(and a Poiwn regression model), with SES from
the Indices of Multiple Deprivation, annual
rainfall and sunshine h m 31 weather stations,
GIS to generate data on infrastructure volume,
and employment data fmm the Annual Business
Enquiry; England
15 sites chosen, repsenting an urban-to-rural
gradient; water quality manually and auto-
samplad; flow heights using a hydraulic model;
Melbourne, Australia
Secondary data about municipal govemment
expenditures from the Historical Finance
Database, all other data from the census; USA
Cross-sectional observational study - residential
areas; self-repwted travel and leisure walking on
a questionnaire; diaries for travel wer a 7day
period; participants wore an actigraph
(measuring accelerations and decelerations);
GIS to measure street connectivity; census
for population density; BM1 objectively
measured during interview; Minneapolis-St.
Paul. USA
Findings Reference
Thm is a positive effect from urban density on the
incidenceof pedestrian casualties over a wide range, but it is
also clear that this effect does diminish. For the most
extremely dense wards, there is a decrease in the expected
casualty rate; as population density increases, it is found
that the incidence of accidents and KSIs decreases. Results
relating to employment density indicate that increased
exprwure of the population in these busy environments will
increase the pedestrian casualty rate, but that in the most
extremely dense economic environments there is a fall in
incidence
Urbanisation was the most likely primary determinant of Hatt et al.
stream water quality degradation. Both drainage connection (2004)
and imperviousness, as sub-basin scale indicators of uhan
density, explained much of the observed variation in
pollutant concentrations; a strong relationship existed
between urban density and electrical conductivity in the
streams of eastern Melbourne; septic tank density was the
dominant influence on NO, concentrations. Sub-basins with
the highest septic tank densities also had the highest
concentrations of NO, and the highest proportions of
nitrogen present as NO,
There is no statistically significant relationship between per Holcombe and
capita total govemment expenditures and operational Williams
expenditures for cities smaller than 500,000, and for larger (m) mS'
cities, higherpopulationdensity is associated with higher per W
capita government expenditures. Infrastructure expenditures
s population density for cities
tend to decline with i n ~ e a s ein
smaller than 500,000,whereas expenditures on services tend
to increase with population density for cities larger than
500,OOo
Dense areas promote travel walking whilst large-block (e.g., O a k et al.
less C O M ~ Careas
I ~ ~ promote
) leisure walking. However, (2007)
total walking and total physical activity is not affected
Vehicle usage and energy
consumption (population,
dwelling and employment
density - only reported on
dwelling density in study)
Neighbourhood walkability and
waking behaviour (dwelling
density)
Perceptions and individual
differences (spatial and social
density)
C 4 concentration (stomatal
density)
Energy, buildings and transport
(urban population density)
Secondary analysis of the 2001 National
Household Transportation S w e y (sub-sample - and usage influence fuel consumption; a lower, versus
2583 households) - travel diaries used to collect
daily travel information, including vehicle
ownership and fuel usage; land use densities also
collected - population per square mile. dwelling
units per square mile, percentage of enter-
occupied housing and jobs per square mile;
California. USA
32 neighbourhoods selected: GIS used to identify
high- and low-walkable neighbourhoods
(comprised of density, street connectivity, land-
use mix and net retail area) and census used to
identify high- and lowSES. postal questionnaire
m obtain data from respondents about physical
activity (e.g., leisure-time walking),
neighbourhood self-selection and mcio-
demographic attributes; Adelaide, Australia
Questionnaire with rating task given to university
students; Baltimore, USA
Observations of stomatal densities in
experiments and field observations; Texas, USA
Examples of density, energy use, ventilation,
heating and heat loss and tmsport energy; UK
and around the world
Density directly influences vehicle usage, and both density Brownstoneand
Golob (2009)
higher, density of l000 dwelling units per square mile
implies an increase of almost lUXl miles driven per year and
about 65 more gallons of fuel used per household
Attributes of neighbourhoods that include s m t connsctivity Owen et al.
and proximity to retail and commercial destinations were (2007)
associated with residents' walking for transport, but not with
walking for recreation; the relationship between
neighbourhood walkability and walking for transport was
stronger for weekly frequency than it was for weekly
minutes. Whilst more-walkable n e i g h b u r h d s may
encourage frequent walking for transport, they required
shorter walking uips to reach destinations than did less-
walkable neighbourhoods, there were no significant
association between environmental factors and walking for
recreation
Substantial individual differences occur in how people
perceive situations of varying density; two key
psychological dimensions need to be considered when
exploring density: social constraint, or the ability of a
person to interact with others and be concerned with the
consequences of that interaction, and spatial restraint, or
the ability of a space to restrict movement and thereby
threaten physical contact -
tu
-
An average reduction in stomatal density of 14.3% occurred
with CO2 enrichment
For dwellings, the energy implications of compact
WoDmnard and
KeUy (1995)
Steemers
-E
densificationare balanced between the benefits from reduced (2003)
heat losses and the non-benefitsof reduced solar and daylight
availability. For oftice buildings, increasing urban density
increases energy use because of the reduced availability of
daylight in particular. However, this increase is significantly
less than the energy increase of changing from a naturally
ventilated office to an air-conditioned office. This change is
only possible to prevent if the urban environment is less
polluted and noisy
Table 15 (Continued)
Variables studied with density
19 Perceived quality of
neighbourhood (population
density)
Commuting and residential and
employment locations
(population and employment
density)
Population size and diversity
(household, building and
neighbourhood density)
Methods and place where study undertaken
Surveys of residents who lived in areas of
different population densities (low, medium.
high) using two different surveys: perceived
Residential Environmental Quality (PREQ) and
Perceived Environmental Quality Indices
(PEQI); Auckland. New Zealand
l b o household surveys about residential and
employment location (including gender,
household income per capita, occupation,
workplace and residence); Guangzhou, China
Structured interviews of public housing
nsidents; Edmonton and Calgary, Canada
Findings Refennce
Significant differenceswere found between densities for 9 of Walton et al.
the 19 PREQ scales, with the medium density (200x1
neighbourhood being ranked most favourably for7 of these 9
scales. Highdensity neighbourhoods were ranked
significantly better for 2 of the9 scales, external accessibility
and transpm services, with d u m density ranked second
for these scales. For the non-significant scales, medium
density neighbourhoods had the highest satisfaction scores.
Across all the scales, for the second and third rankings there
was a fairly even split between high and low density
neighbourhoods. For the PEQI,significant differences
between densities were found for only one scale,
maintenance by neighburs, with high density
neighbourhoods being ranked worst and low density ranked
best: population density had no significanteffect on most of
the variables that were consistent across both surveys.
Notably. thue were no differencesin residential satisfaction.
Quality of Life or the intention or desire to move from the
neighbourhood. People in highdensity areas did travel more
often to socialise however, whilst people in low density areas
travelled to shop more often, with medium density residents
travelling least often to shop
Employment density may decentralisefaster than population
density; male employment decentralised faster than female
employment; rapid employment and population
deannaliation occurred for low-income earners (v. high-
income earners who experienced a slight centralisation
trend) and for lower-status occupations (vs. managerial and
professional workers); mean commuting distance and time
has increased somewhat but the share of long-distance
suburban to inner-city commutes has declined substantially
(consistent with the suburbanisation of jobs)
Household and building density interact with perceived
diversity as correlates of psychological strain which is, in
turn, related to general discomfort and anomie; persons
who think that they differ from their neighbours are more
likely to experience strain when they live in high-density
housing; people who experience diversity are mon likely
to experience strain when the density of their own
households is high; whether one feels distress depends not
only on the space available, but with whom one must
share it
Urban compactness and social
equity (gross, net, wanl, and
dwelling density and rooms per
household)
Urban intensification (dwelling
density)
Energy use, Land use a d local
travel (dwelling density)
l h v e l and quality of life
(population and gross dwelling
density)
Urban form and car dependence
(h population density)
Secondary data on density, mix of uses,
intensification, social equity and external
influences on the above (e.g., level of car
ownership) from the census, Iocal housing
statistics, mortality statistics and propxty market
reports; 25 UK t o m and citiw
Case studies using an Advance Balanced Sheet
to evaluate land use policy (involves collecting
information on planning decisions relating ti
intensification, understanding the kends and
patterns that the decisions &ed 'on the
ground' and skategic evaluation); t h m
London boroughs (Hamw, Camden and
BromIey), UK
Surveys in 8 residential areas b a d on housing
type, housing density, location relative to the city
centre, access to public transport, distance to
Iocal sub-centre and local mix; Oslo. Norway
Four case studies of two towns with high and low
densities and single and mixed-use; secondary
data used for selection of case studies;
questionnaires and interviews of HouseholL,
Scotland
A study of 32 cities using primary data for
population, urbanised Land area, vehicle
kilometres of mvel in cars, transit vehicle
kilometresof sewice and passenger b o a r d i g for
each city; worldwide
The potential of the compact city depends on the form it
takes; the cities which most support equity are those with a
large proportion of high-density housing, in the form of
terraces and flats, and a large quantity of locally provided
services and facilities: high densities an positive for four
aspects of social equity: access to superstores, public
tmspoct use, lower death rates from mental illness and lower
social segregation
Higher densities facilitate the introduction of sustainable
technologies (i.e., CHP)
Residents Living in high-density areas use far more energy
than do others for travel by plane. At the same time, they use
less energy than do others for everyday travel; low energy
use correlated with high-density housing located a short
distance from a centre and offering a range of private and
public services; the per capita average energy consumption
for single-family housing, row housing and multi-family
housing is approximately 12,000,9000 and 8000 kWh,
respectivelyf ksidents having access to a private garden use
on average 1000 fewer kWh annually for long leisure-time
travel by-car and plane than do residents without such
access
The compact city (compared to low-density, single-use) is
associated wilh much greater accessibility to city facilities
for ~sidents,leading to a 70% reduction in private car w e
and a 75% reduction in the distance travelled for non-work
trip; low-density areas, through aspects such as their
graenery, open spaces and parks,provided a higher quality of
Life
In contrast to city wealth, urban form-in particular, higher Kenworthy and
urban density-is consistently associated with lower levels Laube (1999)
of car ownership and car use, higher levels of transit use, and (also see
lower total costs of operating urban passenger transportation
systems
 %ups!= p!m p a l d a ~ aq q 01 spaau %u!snoq A~suap-mqSy
!(slol3EJB~m S3POU03a puB Aqdd038 'IEIo]SypUOe11)
mapuadap alypuIane/mopeqq ~ g n u ~ m pua3sqof jo
uo!iaao~a g 'armarulslryu! jo L~pualu!ayl f ulunufalap 101x3
auo Il~uo s! Xl!suap:sappnu~umXl!suap-~aqSgU! sup!^ myr
mw h!~!qou mj iuapuadap m arou am put suo!~mr!isap
a p m qmfi oi s l o w s p Suol a1nwluo3 a pua
sappmruuroa Xl!suap-~afio[q t u w l qdoad : d s u d M EPEUE~*'c!qrunlo3
SSXK)~PUB sap!suq aqSg uaom~q pun &![wspropSupnoq qs!iua !sa!lgd!a!unur 92 aw 30 9 u o y W ! ~ ~ J O
pm sappap q a g mmug slsFa U O I J B ~ W ~ a~!lreaau gl!~sma!,uau! p u s,uamnmp
~ pdp!unu
8 ! ~ ~ U W U9FWruolllE
&P p?onP qIp PUB U M W W U ! rat110 puu mid ppgpJO s!sLpu Iuaurncap
U! sapuapga t p pan!mssr~ S! sap!unuiuroa 30 r(i!suaa :wp!pdp!unru g2 luoy m p snsuaa Lwpuoaas
uoFIE%?I%%B30 q a q ~ u u a g p is q w s qIU
EL Lipuap
:=up3 pus p p u d uopqndod ' u o q q~q uaalywq ~ ~
p a s y suogqaucx, anp!sod :arupg pus aul! qmlq w r m a q
uop[auo3 anptsod r a anp SEMSW-o%a!a ues U! saw mp
rCu?dord a m 1 yl!M pm puwAaI3 U! saler atup r(lr?dard vsn 'oSam uss pus puqanal3 :(rtu?dard
p m puosladlamol +!M ~ a l r(l!suap m pare l u ~ ~ u l : pue puosmd iualo!~) awua Wpuoaes
(mma!s a a uogqa~U! amdsuroy
~oiunourepm ayl) sopwio~dtu!Lldd~Ilqpaupeuluu;nap,Qaarp
aq UBJ a!s C W iuarudo~anap 50 ~ u n amq ~:(m a[gel!q~q
Jad mm ~uamdqaapi s a h l aql ap!nard M squn ~ E U I amm S
q!nq a swdolaap a%.mmua p woo^ a[qa)!qtlq p m u n u
mnur!mu a g lu!uyap mmqm s8u!llamp qqpod ~s&.m[
aw pp~!nqM pohnmua an sndo~an?p' s B t q p ~30 p qmnu
umtupm q Supyap Ilq '.%.a) sluatudopap ams q mj
sau!ur ~ulrayn,%upla!l s a m m ~uaragp ' x y au![la~p
aql au!uualap M !I pasn anmm hpwJOadk W :a!% P uo
~uawdola~apjo ~unoureayrm WO
I J 1p-q Supyapu! ahpspu!
am (pmpug U! pasn Kpuanbaq q w q rad surm
qqa)!qeq pm aremy a ad su!llamp "a'!) s a n m Lipuap m :(sappuap ~u!&A p slay pus wnoq)
~uauna: ( x y Lpnoq pue indel Mp a e p s! q 'rayrsl) Lipuap B ~ J Bmpnqns 10utrpln ua U! law!? pus qdp 0~
a pcnsla~IOU s! k ~ n ub9 p p :inoIlq p@ 'avoaS usp m u q 9 g iaqi!a =am sruarudopnap
E x b p M PU~Iauaurdo~a~ap p!iuap!~11paxy 'Lipuap :wqS!@g sa!pnls a m 9) m m I l ~ p w n w
w a p ! ~ S~~ W~~ W M I ~ uuoj i p q WIM :*l&s p 0 1 U! sluaurdo[anap BAO JO p u a m
(8661) w a inor(qPUGXlpuap - M I ~ dmpq?~
~uns!swaou S! ==U, IEA!~~IE pm SURI~ ~uau~dolan?p * s ~ ~ w S O ~ O ~ (Llrsuap S~~II~MIJ) '4103 11!na LZ
Population size (household
density, neighbourhood density)
Urban crowding (household
density, neighbourhood density)
Urban crowding and social life
(census tract density)
Avian diversity (woody plant
density)
Urbanisation and breeding bird
structure and diversity (bird and
dwelling density)
Physical activity in urbanised
areas (urban population density)
Underage drinking (alcohol
outlet density)
Survey looking to test 'negative hypotheses for
new dependent variables; to determineif negative
density effects appear only when certain 'buffers'
are weak and; to test hypotheses about 'positive'
effects of density; Baltimore, USA
Interviews, observation and medical
examinations of a sample of families; Toronto,
Canada
Detroit Area Study survey of 1000 men,
including items about neighbouring, friendships
and social networks; census data to obtain
neighbourhood density; Detroit Metropolitan
region, USA
Comparison of avian communities in terms of
diversity and composition in three residential
neighbourhoods using bird and vegetative
S U N 9 S ; Texas, USA
Comparing pattwns of bird density and diversity
and measured vegetation in 34 neighbourhoods;
Arizona. USA
Surveys of high school students fmm 10 urban
districts. including items about subjective time
spent doing recreational physical activity and
engaging in sedentary behaviour and
demographics (including BM); Nanjing,
China
300 computer-assisted telephone interviews with
youths aged 14-16 over a 2.5-year period;
questions concerned frequency of drinking and
excessive drinking, peer and parent drinking,
personal income, mobility, demographics;
alcohol outlet density calculated as the count of
active off-premise outlets per roadway mile
within each zip code, California. USA
Increasing household density was associated with spending verbnlgge and
more leisure time with household members and relying on TayIor (1976.
them more when ill; increasing density was positively 1980)
associated with recognising other residents, but negatively
associated with getting to h o w them; increasing
neighbourhood density meant that more of one's neighbours
wee friends, but neighbours were liked less as density
increased
Household density was slightly associated with a decrement Booth (1976)
in quality of family life (with males and firstkm and older
children affected greatest by household cmwding conditions
in terms of health and for fernales in terms of education);
there was no effects of neighbourhood density on quality of
family life or aggression
Increasing census tract density was associated with a reduced
level of casual neighbouring
Density and vertical structure of the woody plant community
in the residential neighbourhoods were moderately to
strongly correlated with species richness, species diversity
and bird community evenness
Densities of exotic, territorial and non-territorial native Mills et al.
bird species were correlated with the volume of exotic
plants; housing density is a less important predictor of
bird diversity than are the characteristics of the vegetation
at the site
Residential density was significantly negatively associated
with recreational physical activity time for students (boh
boys and girls) h m the highest, versus the lowest, densities
When all other factors are controlled, higher initial levels of Cben et al.
drinking and excessive drinking were observed amongst @309)
youths residing in zip codes with higher alcohol outlet
densities; growth in drinking and excessivedrinking was, on
average, m m rapid in zip codes with lower alcohol outlet
densities; the relationship between zip code alcohol outlet
density and drinking appeared to be mitigated by having
friends with access to a car
Car ownership, car use and the
built environment (dwelling
density)
Built envimnment. metabolic
syndrome (residential
population, employment and
intersection density; density of
bus stops, fast food and non-fast
food lestaurants, g m x r y stores,
large grocery stores and
conveniencelpetrol stations)
Suburban diversity (population
density)
Urban pedestrian flow through
simulation (padestrian density)
Heavy metal levels in madside
dust and flow (motor vehicle
traffic density)
Secondary data analysis of the 2000-2001 Ghent
Travel Behaviour Survey; personal and
household characteristics of 5500 persons
(including children over 6). number of hips
taken, number of cars, land use diversity, built-up
area index (as a proxy for built-up density).
distance torailway stationand CBD, accessibility
by car, age, driving licence, marital status,
household income, employment, car ownership;
Ghent, Belgium
Body fat and total body fat, height, blood
pressure, pubertal status, fasting blood samples
(for total cholesterol and low- and highdensity
lipopmteins) w m determined for adolescents;
GIS was used to calculate the distance to and
density of pedestrian infrastructurefeatures (e.g.,
transit stops), population density, land-use mix,
stnet pattern, restaurants,food stores and sources
of physical activity (e.g., a park) from a
participant's house; distances and density were
calculated by network and straight line route;
densities were calculated by dividing the total
number of the specific feature (i.e., parks) by the
land area, excluding water; Minneapolis-St. Wul,
USA
Secondary data analysis of the 2000 US Census;
5801 places (of which, 5645 are subutbs), nested
within 65 melropolitan areas, were examined for
diversity (using entropy measures concerning
radnativity, life cycle, socioeconomicstatus and
residential status); USA
Computer simulation to model mobility
scenarios. or urban pedestrian flows, using
realistic behaviour patterns from street
observations of pedestrians; Osaka,
Japan
Seventy-five roadside dust samples were
collected in the imer city and by-pass
motorways; Thessaloniki, Greece
Lower car ownership and less car use is associated with Van Acker and
living in high-density and mixed-use neighbourhoods that Witlox (2010)
have poor cat accessibility and are located close to the CBD
of Ghent or a railway station; higher incomes are associated
with Ijving in less densely built and more diverse
neighbourhoods; car ownership is lower amongst people
living in densely built and diverse neighbourhoods
As the density of both small and large grocery stores Dengel et al.
inawed in a 1600 m network, so did adolescents' percent (2'309) 9
body fat (this relationship was not significant,however, after H
controIling for puberty, age and sex); systolic blood pressure
was significantly and i n w y reIated to density of mnsit
(i.e., as the density of bus stops decreases, systolic blood
p s s u r e increases in adolescents);a negative trend emerged
between systolic blood pn~ure and density of large grocery
a m ; a trtnd existed, suggesting that greater access to parks
and lower density of retail food outlets lower the risk of
developing metabolic syndmme
Suburban diversity varies with metropolitan population
size and suburban size, density, dominance and distance
from the central city; specifically, subuhan diversity
increases with population size and density (confirming
Wirth's (1938) theory that the demographic diversity
of a community is related to population size and
density)
The speed of a pedestrian on the s a t is negatively Maeda et al.
associated with pedestrian density; on any, very crowded (W)
street, almwt the same density is observed when the speed of
pedestrians is very close to Omph
Areas of high traffic density are associated with an increased Ewen er al.
release of heavy metals into adjacent residential or (2009)
commercial areas
Table 15 (Cmtinucd)
Variables studied with density
Housing typJmix and
affordability and viability of
new housing supply (dwelling
density)
Mixed land use and housing
values (dwelling and population
density)
Methods and place where study undertaken
Use of a hedonic model to study how house price
is influenced by different types of dwellings and
housing densities; the output from the model
simulates the expected sale price of each housing
unit under different density and mix scenarios
and constructs hypothetical cost models and
draws conclusions about residual values: house
prices and development densities are anaIysed to
evaluate relative affordability (relative and most
affordable) of different mixes and densities;
different areas in London (Nonh East and South
West), Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham and
Southampton, UK
Secondarydataanalysisfrom threemunxs: (1) tax
assessment files, (2) Regional Land Information
System from Portland, Metm,(3)US Census data,
measures of connectivity (number of street nodes
and segments, total miles of streets, number and
lengthofblocks,proximity to cul-de-sacs,length of
cul-de-sacs, distance between points of access in
the neighbourhood), density, land use (non-single
family vs. single family residential use).
accessibility (distance to commercial usea a bus
stop and a public p l c ) , Wpat mode choice,
pedestrian&dcabity (percentageof single-family
home.within onequarter mile of commercial uses
and bus stops), ph&cal atbibutes (lot size, square
feet of floor space and age of house),public service
levels (access to municipal services, mean SAT
scans and studenUteacber ratio of the school
district, adjusted pmperty tax rate), location
(distance to thnx CBDs), amenities (pmxirnity to
golf course, water bodies, views of mountains,
minor roads) and dis-amenities(exposuretotraffc)
and -0-economic characteristics (racial
composition,howhold income, year the p w l of
housing land was sold); Washington County and
Portland, USA
%
Findings Refeacnce
High-density neighbourhoods do not attract a premium, National
suggesting that consumers @a lower-density Housing and
neighbourhoods;both low-density, detached-dominant m Planning
and high-density, flat-dominant areas attract a premium over Advice Unit
medium-density, 4 - d e t a c h e d and terraced houses: the (2010)
relative size ofke price premiumdpenalties for d i h t type
mix anddensitvcharacttristicsvatv betwandifferent housinn
mauket W;in two cases in ~eehs,the lowest density
(30 dph) produced the highest residual value for the 100%
market (i.e.. no & d l e housing). In six out of IOcases, the
highest density (120 dph) produced the highcat residual value.
In one case in London North East, the intermediate density
(50 dph) prodwad the highest residual value; actual schemes
built where the model suggested 30 dph produced the highest
residual value were, in some cases, deveIoped at considembly
higher densities (e.g., 7 1-282 dph); the m m affordable
homes were in the medium-density schemes. In no cases was
low density more affordable. In the majority of cases, the
medium-density option offers a more affordable product than
the high-density option, but the latter was m m affordable in
Leeds and Southampton
Residents are willing to pay less for houses in
neighbourhoods that are dense and contain more commercial
uses and multi-family homes (i.e., flats) versus paying
premiums for houses in neighbourhoods with more internally
amnective street networks, more streets and shorter dead-
end smets, more and smaller blocks, bener pedestrian
accessibility commercial uses, more evenly distributed
mixed land uses in the neighbowhood and bmer proximity
to opmting light rail stations; proximity to multi-family
residential units can depress the prices of singlefamily
housing; single-family housing was adversely affected by
dwelling unit density, but not population density
Physical activity and
neighbourhood environment
(residential dwelling density)
Residential exposure to outdoor
alcohol advertising and pmblem
drinking in African-American
women (density of outdoor
alcohol advertising)
Global spillwer patterns in new
product takeoff (population
density)
Cooling effects of shade trees
(foliage density)
Crowding, cognitive
development and maternal
responsiveness (nsidential
m m density)
A survey of 492 adults; measures relating to Participants were more likely to walk l50 midweek or more lnoue et al.
physical activity and neighbourhood environment when they perceived a high residential density, g d access (2009)
(access to shops, access to public transport, to shops and had pavements
presence of pavements, presence of bike lanes,
access to recreatianal facilities, crime safety, MC
safety, social mviromnt, aesthetics, household
motor vehicles and residential density (i.e., asking
participants what the main types of houses w e in
their neighbourhoods, e.g.. detached single-family
residences, condos, apartments)); Japan
Questionnaire given to 139 African-American An association exists between outdoor advenisement Kwate and
women (measures examined problem drinking, exmure and adult alcohol consumption, in which a I-unit Meyer (2009)
family related alcohol problems, education and increase in average exposure to advertisements was related
income); outdoor advertising density measured to a 13% greater odds of being a problem drinker (the median
by street observation of ouulwr advertising e x p u r e to alcohol advertising was 14.1 advenisements per
panels in Central Harlem and geo-coding data; block)
New York City, USA b
'-4
Running an econometric model to capture global Poorer countries with greater tourism numbers and higher Van Everdngen
spillover in new product takeoff on eight population densities are more susceptible to global spillover et al. (m)- 3
products-CD *layers, PCs, video -eras, digital effects (vs, larger countries with more economic wealth and
cameras,mobile phones,Intemet access, ISDN and more exporting power, which have more power in the global
DVD players-"sing secondary data from spillover process)
Euromonitor, International Teleconununications
Union, the World Bank and OECD;data on
independent variables-fmign susceptibility
(under which population density was measured).
foreign clout and inter-county distances were
gatheredfrom theUN Statistical Yearbook,theCIA
World Factbook. World Development Indicators
andUS CensusandEu~omonitoronline; worldwide
Measurement of leaf and canopy chancteristics Foliage density had the greatest contribution to surface-soil Lin and Lin
of 10 species of trees and two species of bamboo cooling, followed by leaf thickness, leaf texture and leaf (201 0)
as well as the micrpclimate conditions under the colour lightness
tree canopies and an un-shad open space in a
sub-uopical urban park: Taipei, Taiwan
n o studies: study 1 examined 80,36-month-old Residential crowding during early childhood predicts Evans et al.
children through home and laboratory visits and cognitive development at 36 months lmth concurrently and (2010)
telephone interviews (household and family prospectively; the well-documented link between high
features, mama1 characteristics and children's residential crowding and poorer cognitive development is
cognitive competence were obtain&, residential largely mediated by diminished maternal responsiveness -
density was measured as the ratio of the number greater crowding at ages 9, IS and 36 months of age is related
of people in the howhold to the number of to less maternal responsiveness at 36 months
moms); Study 2 examined 10,050babies at 9 and
36 months of age, with data being collected from
parents through m n a l interview and self-
completion questionnaire and cognitive testing
and ohsewationscarried out by an interviewer for
children aged 36 months (same measures used as
in Study 1); Little Rock, USA
 vsn wea
I'S 's![odeaw!~ :@ia h i q ! [ ' n y ~ oisad 'ad
'~IOM moX 'dqs snq '~uaurXa~dwa 3U- 01
a m i s p !lga snoauqlajsy 'samld Zupp!~p
p m tuppa 'sa.101~ poq 'as!pueqaaru ~ e ~ a u l
:sa@neaqns l!mar rofeu U! saobldula
p bl!suap !m )Fun lad iuawXoldnua
~pla :W~ i!un lad puq luawXo1dnua
!sam p a u a y - m pua ppsnpu! U! pm1
30 &m& 'ssn ~ ! m aU! puel JO a8muaaad
'mm p!3w tq PUB[ JO aSmu3~~ad !sasn awp
@
II-U ! U! pug1JO aik~uaalad 3 8 piwaxa
1 1 ~ ~ pue ~
-m'p!iuappa 'uo!iaam pm s a d 'asgp
'puisnpu! '@!mururoa U! ewe 1~)1ed 1mo1
JO a S w u 4 :Xi!suap dois i!sma 'sindrunp
i o g y p 8 !lang aIq!sp ¶!M sluau8as
laais p a8muaac-d !ram ifun lad +8ua1
)uaruantd !opts apou pn%u iuo3 ! m e asn pm1
rad suopmaavu! ABM-mo~: m e q q q snsux1
mpaw p m aserne npnpu! Amvianu!
- (K~!suapdols
&!sap m m peseq-play e p m uo!aeiada;nu! i ! s w 'aSzaho3 101 'rli!ruap
ysnoqip 'rli!npe pa!sXqd Ipano pue Ii!suap uaomiaq oloqdoyuo 'srjqwep Sup!xa way Su!lpfip 'hysuop iuaurXo~dw
d!qsuogqa~mu!l ou Xlp!mq s! a q i ! % u ~ s ams!aI fi SU!WO~ 9cp S19 ql!M '=IqB!mn p;rssq-S19Pm '&!suap ~ u a d o ~ d w a
30 q a q 1aMoI )nq 'uodsuss JOJ %UWM JO qaha11aqSy daluns ep) samieas ~ u a u ~ ~ m ! h'mopqaq ua PUB wpqndod '(8lrs
~
aney m m rlilsuap-mql!q U! i l u ! ~ !nu?p!sa %a e UMO Li!n!me p?a!sLqd 'Bn(pm *n!s raploqasnoy puel le!iuap!xu JXI'pan puel
pue aluoq e UMO 'paymu ap ' d a p a8alloo e aiieq 'n!w 'd!qsraumoawoq ' m u n 'r?puJ 'snieis nueru pado~ailap d 'pan p w l!un
?q Ol ilq!l 110U lam SBUB X~!SUSPMO~ U! 04th 'uo!leJnpa 'a88 papnlm! winsem !sappu?p W w~lndoa,
S ~ I I B ~ ! J!-ld
J U B30~ sa!)sua1~rnq3p3~sAqd aq) 01UOIJEI~A -qQq p m -wn!paur '-MO[ p swm s n ~ oqu! j ppuap!m JO wmmt3 ~ ~ q s A q d
U! s a w (ams!y i o [anail 'T!)sasod~d 3y!2ads 104 l u p p ~ pep!hp 'slulrd!a!ued SIL m3 ppe=llm mna p m &!AWIW!SL~~ ' 8 ~ f l B f i
ssaaans a~panparda
mm01 U! Su!llnsu 'sa!i!suap m @ y le passudwo~aq I~!M
az!s hi!uy ~ o l u ~ ~asnmaq
do pamdxa s! uogonpoldaA
iuapuadap-Li!suap 'poo~JOJIlu!ew S! uo!l!laduroa u a w
*uopanparda~ ~uapuadap-li!suapIOU pup L1!1epoiva
qSnarqi paimdxa S! uo!snlaxa luapuadq-6l!suap
=' )!S isau JOJuo~iadmooL[upem S! aIal(l J! !snon%!]um
a n s a w i p a putr @!q S! n ! s 1C101!uai lern!do
ayl ' a h I(~~A~BI?I
~ S! 81118 IWU JO k!suap ayl US^ isPuelaW N (W!S lsaUJO Ll!suap pue p003 30
(toot) .alp lsau aqi 4uo sapnpu! p m lpws S! n!s k o l p a aqL :paw13 am s u o ~ ~ p up3!3olo3a
m Xl!~uap)-OS= 30 &g!qp!~p
JassMpus qloa lswgdo al~]'sap tsau jo Qsuap MOI B S! amyi u a q ~ lwa&!p lapun n!s pw~px p v w i o ~ so l a p o ~ ' h g a q p m 'auapuadaa €S
Ja
-?
"l &u!pug ua-un Xpnis uayfi amid p m s p o q a ~ B!suap g ! pa!pnls
~ salqsp~
( P a r U ! $ W ) S1 ~1qe.L.
Socioeconomic status (fast food
restaurant density and arterial
road density)
Social and environmental
determinants of obesity (fast
food outlet density)
Gender diffmnces, mental
health. social behaviour and
crowding (household density;
neighbourhood density, defined
as number of people per
dwelling)
Fuel demand (urban population
density)
Outdoor temperature, high-rise
residential developments and
vegetation (vegetation density,
building density)
US Census data was used for median household Fast food restaurant density is significantly associated with Hurvitz et al.
incomes, property values and race/ ethnicity; low median household income and high arterial road density (-1
geo-coding of fast food restaurant addresses (i.e., fast f a d Estaumnts are more likely to be located in
(fast food density isexpressed the number of fast lower income neighbourhods and higher traffic areas)
food restaurants per tract unit area and per
capita) and arterial street data (arterial density is
defined as the summed length of arterial
madways per tract area); King County,
Washington State, USA
Analysis of the density of fast food outlets per People living in areas from the poorest socioeconomic status Reidpath et al.
capita by locating fast food outlets in 269 postal had 2.5 times more exposure to fast f a d outlets than people (m)
districts; population of each p t a l district and in the wealthiest socioeconomic status
median individual income were obtained from
the 1996 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census;
Melbourne, Australia
Secondary analysis of data from the Toronto Whilst women in crowded homes an m m likely to be
Mental Health and Stress Study (comprised of depressed, men exposed to high-density living environments
interviews with residents of 200 'census do not report increased aggression. However, men report
enumeration areas'); measures included higher levels of withdrawal, and some males respond with
household density (defined as the number of both aggression and withdrawal
persons per room in a household). neighbourhood
density (defined as the total population of the
neighbourhood by the number of residences in
the 'forward sortation area' of the postal code),
sex. depression, aggression and withdrawal;
Toronto, Canada
Calculating fuel demand models for 84 cities Urban density affects fuel consumption per capita
from 42 different countries (variables included (elasticities between -0.33 and -0.35). mostly through
fuel consumption per capita and per kilornem. variations in car stock (elasticity is -0.12) and in distances
car ownership, distance driven per car, fuel travelled by car (elasticities between -0.23 and -0.241,
price, metropolitan GDP, average network rather than through fuel consumption per kilometre
speed, C@ emissions and urban density -
defined as people per hectare for the urbanised
zone of the metropolitan area, which excluded
forest, farmland and large green spaces), using
cross-sectional secondary data; worldwide
Measuring climatic parameters and physical In high-rise, high-density environments, on-site variables, Giridharan et al.
characteristics from I2 to 15 weather stations on such as sky view and altitude, have a substantial impact on (m)
housing estates using field experiments and the influence of vegetation in lowering outdoor temperatures.
surveys, respectively (independent variables -
However, off-site variables. such as high urban density and
included surface albedo, sky view, altitude, shrub anthropogenic heat, could negate the behaviour of sky view
wver, tree wver and average height-to-floor and altitude
area; dependent variable is urban heat island
intensity); Hong Kong
Table 15 (Cmtinued)
Variables studied with density
60 Utlm travel demand (m
population density)
Social and cognitive
functioning, schizophrenia and
urbanicity (population density)
Pupil attainment (urban density
- density of schools and
residential population density)
Wage inequality (urban
population density)
Methods and place where study undertaken Findings Reference
Cnation of an urban aavel demand estimation Urban car travel increases when the averageuser cost of a car Souche (2010)
model based on 100 global cities (variables and the urban density fall. C o d y , an increase in average
include cost of a private car, cost of public user cost and urban density, combined with a decrease in the
transport, income, urban structure (which is avemge user cost of public transportation, encouragespublic
urban density), number of daily car trip per
person, numbw of daily public transport hips per
pemon; worldwide
Secondary analysis from three databases: the The effect of living in areas of increasing population density Weiser et al. n
Israeli Draft Board (cognitive, behavioural and increases the risk of lam hospitalisation for schizophrenia in
physical assessment data on 371,603 male men with vulnerability for khizophrenia, express& as par
adolescents aged 16-17), the Israeli central social and cognitive functioning
Bureau of Statistics (data on population density
- number of persons per square kilometre for
each of the country's geographical units
containing 3000-4000 residents) and the Israeli
National Psychiatric Hospitalisation Registry
(data on hospitalisations for schizophrenia);
Israel
Use of an empirical model to test the Pupils educated in the most dense u h environments could
relationship between pupil attainment (Key gain around 2-3 percentiles in the national pupil attainment
SATS Stages 2 and 3 test scores in Maths, distribution relative to 0th- in their cohort educated in the
Science and English and GCSWNVQ point least dense settings
scores in a range of subjects; ge* age;
ethnicity; language skills; special educational
needs or disabilities. entitlement to frae school
meals; residential postcode) and urban density
(measured as the density of schools in a
locality, the amount of local developed land
and residential population density) for three
cohorts of over 400,000 students each;
England
Analysis of secondary data of US white male There is a significant negative correlation between urban
workers' earnings (census data to calculate density and wage inequality (in terms of overall, &dual and
meaopolitan population density-using county- education group inequality)
level density figures-and lPUMS data to
observe workers' e d n g s ) ; USA
Urban form. biodiversity and
ecosystem services (population
density, dwelling density,
address density, building
density, density of buildings
with addresses)
Agglomeration (population
density, employment density)
Physical fonn and social life
(ppulation density, dwelling
density, pmeption of
neighbourhd density)
Privacy, overlooking, noise and
the compact city (net dwelling
density)
Carrelational and regression analysis of secondary
dab fmm the UK Census (population density -
number of residents per h e c e , housing density -
number of households per hectare; proportion of
detachedlsemi-detachedhouses; proportion in
social group AB), MasterMap and Ordnance
Survey (addressdensity -the number of addmses
per m , -
building density the number of
buildings p hectare, density of buildings with
&sses - the number of buildings with one or
more associated addresses per hectare; propoltion
cover of gardens; proportion cover of greenspace;
proportion cwer of gardens and p n s p a c e ;
proportion m e cover over gardens or greenspace;
avemge patch size of: greenspace, gardens and
greenspace, non-sealed areas, tree cover and tree
cover over gardens and greenspace and,
temperature) as well as data about surface run-off
and carbon sequestration; UK
Secondary analysis of the 1999 French census
-
(employment data total employment and p s
employment density; population data -
population pm acre); all communes in the
Burgundy region, including Dijon, France
Postal questionnaire about community cohesion.
general wellbeing, perception of the
neighbourhood and the built environment and
social network observational survey of social
activities and pedestrian movements within all
neighbourhood publicly accessible spaces;
checklist of the quality of the built environment
and physical features and; computer modelling of
the visibility and accessibility of spaces;
neighbourhoods in Oxford, Reading and London.
UK
Thirteen case studies of sustainable housing
developments (a range of densities was sought,
but then later were categorised into three bands -
low (3Mph and below), medium (between 31 and
50 dph) and high (S ldph and above)) using a site
survey checklist (used to measure and analyse the
physical features) and a household questionnaire
(used to measure residents' privacy and to collect
social and economic data); UK
High-density urban developments are generally associated Ratalos et al.
with poor environmental performance, as measured by (m)
greenspace patch size and the levels of key environmental
services; more densely urbanised areas have l e .coverage by
greenspace and gardens, smaller habitat patch sizes, greater
predicted runoff, higher predicted maximum temperatures
and lower predicted carbon sequestration (and, hence, trae
cover); in residential areas, coverage by greenspace and its
p c h size tend to decline most rapidly at lower levels of
urbanisation; ecosystem quality tends to decline
continuously as urban density increases; in output areas,
housing type has significant relationships with carbon
sequestrationltreecover, cover by greenspace and cover by
gardens independent of housing density
Even though somejob cenbaliisationhas Mxurred because of Baumont et al. p
urban policies, then an no clwters of employment that had a (m)
significant impact on the distribution of population density,
hence the mono-oentric character of the agglmeration of
Dijon
Residents follow different strategies in the formation of
social networks: highdensity neighbourhoods are associated
with few but strongersocial relationships, whilst low-density
neighbourhoods are associated with wider networksof m m
i n f d acquaintances.. However,the physical layout of
neighbourhoods plays a stronger role in social cohesion than
does density
Density has an effect on privacy in the home in terms of Lidsay et al.
overlooking(with the size of private outdoor s p in the front (2010)
of a dwelling, as well as the numbet of bedrooms, having a
negative impact on levels of comfort with the view into the
living area; in contrast,the number of bedrooms has a positive
influence on comfortlevels with the view into the private open
s p ) and no& distuhance (with the frequency of hearing
neighbour noise affected by the distance to the nearest
dwelling to the front and the detached nature of the dwelling-
the greater the distancebetweendwellings at the front-which
says little about the distancebetween dwellingsat the sides and
rear-the more frequently respondents m l d hear noise fmm
their neighbours; the more detachad the dwelling, the less
often respondents could hear noise from neighbours)
Table 15 (Cmtinued)
Variables studied with density
Developing countries' social,
economic and environmental
sustainability (net population
density, net dwelling density,
floor area per person and
-
perceived density residents'
perceptions of their
neighbourhood in terms of space
between buildings, the number
of people and the size of home)
Housing types, mixed land use
and affordable housing
(dwelling density)
Methods and place where study undertaken
Eleven neighbourhoods of varying densities (low
- up to 200 unitslha; medium between 201 and
400 unitdha; high between 401 and 600 unitsha)
w m examined via in-depth interviews, site
observations and physical site surveys; Mumbai,
India
A quasi-experimental regression analysis of a
matched pair of regions at two different points
in time using US Census data to provide
information about affordable housing, dwelling
density (number of housing units per square
mile), vacancy rates, racial diversity, local
regulation, local taxes, availability of public
infrastructure, proportion of housing in the
neighbourhood with four or more bedrooms,
age of dwelling units; Portland and Seattle,
USA
Findings Reference
Higher dwelling densitieshad positive impacts on access to Dave (2010)
facilities and amenities at a neighbourhood level; in rreas
with higher residential and population densities,
neighbourhoods provided less floor area per person and a
smaller amount of living space; higher physical densities
were negatively related to the stress-related health of
neighbourhood residents; physical and perceived densities
had an overall negative impact on satisfaction with the
neighbourhood; residents living in larger and less crowded
dwellings were more likely to want to stay in their present
home and neighbourhood; neighbourhoods with larger
dwellings sizes were perceived to be more attractive, with
good maintenance and infrastructure and better parking
facilities; neighbourhoods with higher commercial uses had
negatives effects on social interaction and sense of safety;
higher dwelling and population densities have positive -
impacts on employment opportunities and cost-effective
infraptructure;higher-density neighbourhoods with higher
comme~ialuse offers more employment opportunities;
higher physical and perceived &n;ities ha; a negative
effect on housing affordability; higher physical and
perceived densitieshave a negative relationship with air and
water pollution; higher household density had a positive
impact on recycling of household waste; higher physical
densities had a positive relationship with the area of open
spaces and parks, but perceptions of higher densities were
negatively associated with the level of perceived
satisfaction with the area of open spaces and parks within
the locality; higher physical and perceived densities were
positively associated with walking, cycling and public
transport use
A neighbourhood with greater density and with a greater
quantity of affordable housing types is likely to have a
p a t e r quantity of affordable rental units than a low-density
neighbourhood consisting exclusively of single-family
homes (although greater dwelling density and a variety of
housing types on their own are probably not the most
effective tools in increasing the quantity of affordable units
for low-income households)
Social equity (gross and net
population and dwelling density,
densities of different types of
dwellings, ward densities, sub-
centre densities)
Eco-socially sustainable
environment, perceived
environmental quality,
perceived health (dwelling
density)
Urbanisation, genetic resistance
to tuberculosis (population
density)
Comparative quantitative investigation of social
equity effects in relation to differing levels and
types of compactness in 25 urban settlements
using 14 indicators to measure density and 44
indicators to measure the 10 different w i a l
equity effects (information taken from the UK
Census; Survey Maps; Department of
Environment and; Offie of Populations,
Censuses and Surveys; UK
Questionnaire given to residents to understand
their perceived quality of the local environment
along four dimensions: functional possibilities of
theenvironment, social quality, appearanceof the
environment and atmosphere of the environment;
GIS map used to study the structural
characteristics of the environment (i.e., building
density-number of housing units-total
population, total gross flax area within a buffer
area of 500m, gran structures-fields, forests,
parks and water combined within the buffet area)
and social equity (measured by accessibility to
local services and facilities from the home);
Helsinki and Espoo, Finland
DNA samples from 12 populations From arouna
the world (i.e., Anatolian Twk,Berber,
Cambodian, English, Ethiopian, Gambian,
Gmk,Indian. Iranian, Japanese, Korean,
Malawian, Sichuanese, South Sudanese, Yakut)
were typed to determine the frequency of an
allele associated with intracellular pathogens
(e.g.. tuberculosis, leprosy); worldwide
In cities with a high density of dwellings, low-income groups
are relatively less disadvantaged in terms of access to
superstores and, therefore, the gap between advantaged and
disadvantaged is smaller; in cities with high dwelling
densities, residents are likely to live further away from the
nearest area of greenspace; the higher the net population
density, the greater extent of public transpon use by low-
income groups, at least for travel to work; the disadvantaged
m more likely to walk Mcycle to work in cities with a large
proportion of low-density dwelling; the average number of
rooms per household is smaller in high-density cities
(significant for population and dwelling density); higher
densities appear to be positive for mental health (i.e., lower
death rates with a high proportion of high-density housing,
such as flats and terraces); the average crime rate across the
city is related to gross density measures, suggesting a closer
association with city size than with actual density;
segregation of low-income groups is lwrer in cities with a
high proportion of high-density housing, such as hits and
terraces, and higher in cities with predominantly low-density
housing; housing at the bottom end of the market appear to
be more expensive in a city with a high proportion of small or
high-density housing, whereas the higher the proportion of
lower-density dwellings, the lower the c m of the cheapest
houses to buy
Dwelling density is generally positively associated with
perceived envimnmental quality, but it may not be linear-
average perceived environmental quality increases until
densities reach approximately 100 dwellingsha. Between
100 and 190dwellingdha, it decreases (with the least
decrease in functional quality and the largest in social
quality). then increases again beyond 190dwellingtVha
A significant and positive relationship exists between B m s et al.
duration of uhan settlement and resistance to infections, (2010)
particularly intracellular pathogens; population density is a
determining factor in the human health and genetic snuctun
of human populations
Table 15 (Cmtinued)
Variables studied with density
73 Creativity, innovation (urban
density, population density,
percent population in urbanised
areas)
Human capital (population
density)
Adoption of the commercial
Intemet by firms, location
(population density)
Methods and place where study undertaken
A linear regression analysis for 240 metropolitan
areas involving the following variables: density
-
(census population density Census population/
Rimary Metropolitan Statistical Area over two
decades; percent population in urbanised m-
using Census data; urban density - PMSAIultran
acres (from the National Resources Institute)
wer two periods), innovation as the dependent
variable (metropolitan area utility patents per
1000 people From the US Patent and Trademark
Office), creative capital (percentage of creative
employees per PMSA fmm the Decennial5
percent Census Public Use Microdata Sample),
Gay Index, Bohemian Index, reseaxh and
development, Milken Tech-Pole Index and the
Creative-Density Interaction (scaled composite
density index and percentage creative capital);
USA
Secondary analysis of migration data from the
American Community Survey for public use
micro-sample areas (PUMAS); includes
education (highest education level recorded) and
density (ppulation density); USA
Secondary analysis of a subset of industriesin the
Harte Hanks Market Intelligence C1 Technology
database (appmx. 116.000 industries). examining
the following variables: industry (using the US
Census Bureau's Business Panems Data) and
industry location, establishment size, population
size and density, Intemet technology variables,
participation and enhancement across
Metropolitan Statistical Areas; USA
Findings Refermce
Density and creativity separately and jointly affect Knudsen et al.
innovation in metropolitan areas (i.e., the density of creative (2007)
workers promotes innovation); a positive relationship exists
between density of creative workers and met~opolitanpatent
activity
S
9
Substantial human capital (i.e., people with advanced
d e w ) can be seen to migrate to both 'low density' (e.g.,
Silicon Valley) and 'high density' (e.g., Manhattan) places; a
Gordon and
Ike& (201 I) 3
m
small, positive correlation exists between PUMA density and i!
the arrival of 'creative' people (i.e., those in arts, design,
entertainment, sports and d a ) ; people prefer to move to
dense PUMAS located in high-income, but small.
metropolitan areas (i.e., New England, the Pacib); highly
trained and creative movers make more idiosyncraticchoices
about where they live than the general population
-
L4
N
Controlling for industry type. participation in the Internet by Forman et al.
firms is more likely in rural =as than in dense, urban areas (m)
because the marginal return from the use of Internet
communications capabilities are higher in remote areas or E
locations lacking economies of density; enhancement costs
for the Internet decrease more quickly as population density
increases than do participation costs
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1

DENSITY: A number of units in a given area

FI. l. A tsxonomy of density, populated with information from the 75 cited d e s in. "Numbemin ~~refer to the quantity of studies
exploring a particular type of density: 'Refs. pertains to t . reference number found in Table 16.

revealed in the taxonomy. Furthermore, those density
types that were not studied became apparent, suggesting
potential areas for future research into density.
Identifying the gaps in the density literature may be
useful for policy-makers and practitioners, as they can
begin to question the relevance of particular density
types to their immediate context (e.g., is the density of
mobile phone masts relevant to a UK city centre?). If
relevant, decision-makers then can consider the
potential relationships between particular density types
and other issues pertinent to the urban environment
(e.g., is there a relationship between the density of
mobile phone masts and the physical health of office
workers?) as well as with whom they may need to
discuss the potential relationships (e.g., local authority
planners should speak with health officers).
6.1. Studies by density type

As can be seen from Figs. 1and 2, the majority of the

75 studies explored the density ofpeople (46%of cited
studies) and built fonn (41% of cited ~tudies).'~
Separating people into its constituent parts (both
individual & social and organisational), we find the
following (see Fig. 3): Population density (i.e.. the

Built form
m Naturalform
'" These pemtagts are based on the number of references within
8 Static form each general unit category-natwal form, built h, etcidivided by
,Mobileform the he number of times the ~ f a m c e sw m cited across all unit
categories (N = 114). In some cases, the references were cited more
than once within a pdcular unit categorybecause morc than one type
of density was researched within n study (e.g., population density and
employment density). Regardless of the formula used to calculate the
unit category with the most citations, it is clear that more studies
Fig. 2. Pemntage of studies by density type. examined people density than any other type of density.
 C.Z Boyko, R. Cooper/Progmss in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
Fig. 3. Percentage of studies involving 'people density'.
number of people per unit area) is researched the most
frequently, possibly because studies rely on &ta that is
readily available from organisations like the UK
Office of National Statistics(ONS) (e.g., Census data).
The same can be said for employment density. Room
population density (i.e., the number of people per
room in a dwelling) is the least frequent type of
density found in studies; this may be due to difficulties
in trying to assess which rooms are habitable in a
dwelling (e.g., is a kitchen a room in which someone
sleeps?) and involves a further level of detail that
might not be feasible to obtain by researchers due to
time and financial constraints.
Looking more closely at built form, we notice a
similar trend as found with people density (see Fig. 4).
That is, like people density, there is one type of built
form density that a majority of the studies examined: the
density of dwellings (i.e., the number of dwelling units
per unit). Again, data for the number of dwellings in a
particular area are readily available from organisations
like the ONS and density figures would be relatively
easy to calculate, which may be why researchers have
utilised this type of density more than others. What is
m NonresldenUaldwlty h.&,
olRcc build@ density)
m lnfnrtrudureden* (e.g.,
mad lntwvctimdensltv)
7 Examining the second tier categories, there are a
Fig. 4. Percentage of studies involving 'built form' density.
encouraging, however, is that researchers appear to be
interested in other built forms and in trying to identify
relationships between the densities of these built forms
and other variables (e.g., density of fast food restaurants
and obesity, Reidpath et al., 2002).
With respect to natural form, many studies have
examined density as it relates to the natural world (e.g.,
density of ants, Harmon & Andow, 2007). However,
given the focus of this paper on urban areas, it makes
more sense to consider studies that explored natural
form within cities. Thus, most of the cited studies
investigated tree or plant cover within a defined urban
area, which can certainly have an impact on environ-
mental (e.g., urban heat island effects, see Giridharan
et al., 2008) and social (e.g., access to green-space
relating to quality of life) aspects of sustainability.
The final two m't categories from the second tier of
Fig. l-mobile material fonn and static f o d d not
produce many studies involving density. In both
instances, this may be due to difficulties with trying
to confirm where mobile material and some static forms
reside (i.e., should train density be calculated at their
departure or arrival points, or be calculated en route?).
Another reason may be that it is the quantity of some of
these things, such as digital technology and waste,
rather than their density, that is more important to
decision-makers. A third reason why these topics may
not be studied very often is that researchers and other
people have not yet made a connection between density
and these forms or structures(cf. the density of alcohol-
related advertising hoardings and rates of alcoholism
amongst African-Americans, Kwate & Meyer, 2009).
An interesting exception is found in the insightful work
of Rao (2007) in which she discusses the phenomen-
ology of density. Using a mobile material form example
of the commuter train journey in Mumbai, she states
that:
The fragile reversibility of the crowd from the
violent substrate of modern society to its quotidian
counterpart of 'adjusted' differences is a key feature
of the local train as a distinct site of density and a
shared density. Density here becomes a complex
phenomenon involving dynamic intersections be-
tween the amorphous mass created through the
movement of persons across city space and the
embedded potential for social conflict and disaster
(p. 232).
Looking again at Fig. 1, the taxonomy becomes a
useful tool to help identify gaps in the density literature.
number of variables in mobile material form, static
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Pmgmss in Planning 76 (2011) 1-61
form, naturalform and people that were not studied (see
Table 16).
This finding suggests two things:
1. Researchers can begin to explore some of the
densities not studied in these second tier categories,
thus contributing new knowledge to the density
literature.
2. The second tier categories need further consider-
ation.
Given the enormity of the task as set out in the first
point, it is unlikely that researcherswill be able toexplore
all or even some of these types of density within the
constraints of conducting march. However, identifying
which first- and second-tiercategories need further study
is an importantfirst step in understanding the relationship
between density and different variables. From here,
decision-makers can begin to map out these relationships
and consider to whom they would need to communicate
to bolster the positive aspects of these relationships as
well as to minimise the negative aspects (e.g., speaking
with the police to discuss how to lower robbery rates in
areas with high densities of bars and clubs).
Concerning the second point, analysis of the 75
studies in Table 15 indicatesthat some of the second tier
categories are less feasible to study in terms of density.
For example, would it be possible to research the
density of spirituality?One could argue that calculating
the density of houses of worship-church, mosque,
synagogue, etc.-in an area could be a proxy for
spirituality, but it is unlikely to capture the essence of
what spirituality means to people. Using house of
worship density would also indicate that this individual
& social sub-unit category would become a built form
category because houses of worship are usually
buildings. Nonetheless, researchers can aim to revise
the taxonomy and provide more feasible second-tier
categories. This information could be used by practi-
tioners, wishing to plan and design urban environments,
and by policy-makers, who want to produce more
effective guidance based on sound evidence.
Table 16
Density variables that were not examined within the 75 cited studies.
Natural form Mobile material form !3tatic form
Csoplrnd Trains Products
Airplants Food
Busts huipmtnt
Bicycles Digital technology
wastc
6.2. Studies by density relationship
In addition to investigating the 75 studies by density
type, we examined the relationships between density
and other variables, noting the direction (i.e., positively
correlateddne variable increases/decreases whilst the
other variable increaseddecreases-and negatively
correlated+ne variable increases/decreases whilst
the other decreases/increases) and strength of the
relationships. Specific references for the studies are not
given in this section, but all findings originate from the
75 studies, which are discussed in Sections 5.1-5.18.
Within Natural form, there appears to be a strong,
positive association with flodfauna and density: that is,
the higher the plant, animal or animal dwelling density,
the greater the beneficial impact on the surrounding
environment, whether it pertains to cooler temperatures,
the quantity of exotic plants, greater species richness
and diversity or the size of an animal's territory.
However, when there is a higher amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere, this has a deleterious effect on some plants.
When considering these findings within urban areas,
then, they appear to indicate that a better balance
between natural and built environments can help to
alleviate some of the damage caused by human
intervention in the name of development, growth and
progress.
Within Built form-Dwellings, it appears that the
relationships between dwelling density and other
variables are a mixture of both positive and negative
with no strong associations in either direction. Thus,
whilst dwelling densities can be higher in areas with a
geometric grid layout (e.g., Manhattan), which can also
promote less car ownership and use, and more walking
and travel walking in particular, it does not promote
everyday travel and leads to greater travel by plane.
Disadvantaged groups also are more likely to have to
walk or cycle to work. Furthermore, higher dwelling
densities may be equated with better environmental
quality (although only at low and high dwelling
densities), lower energy and GHG use and less heat
loss, and allow for greater introduction of sustainable
-
People individual and social -
People organisational
Culture Govmance
Lifestyle Business
Health Religion
Spirituality
technologies. However, higher densities create fewer
opportunities for solar and daylight penetration. More-
over, whilst death rates are lower in higher density
dwellings, stress-related health is worse, as is dis-
turbance from noise. Overlooking isanother issue that is
perceived as both positive and negative, depending on
views into or out of dwellings and the number of
bedrooms. Finally, whilst higher dwelling densities
often are more equitable in terms of possessing more
affordable homes, creating more options for housing
mix (as opposed to, for example, single-family
housing), integrating low-income groups and accessing
facilities and amenities at the neighbourhood level,
incomes are often lower, there are little to no premiums
placed on these types are dwellings/areas and access to
the nearest green-space is limited.
Within Built form-Non-dwellings, the presence of
higher densities of buildings in which there is a
possibility of peopleobtaining unhealthy food and drink
are moderately associated with poor health and socio-
economic conditions. That is, adolescents' body fat
increased, adults' alcoholic drinking became more
excessive and the chances of developing metabolic
syndrome increased along with decreases in systolic
blood pressure. Moreover, more of these types of
buildings were located in low-income, lower SES areas
with heavier vehicular traffic.
For Built form-Infrastructure. the larger the city-
and, hence, the higher the density of pavement-the less
friendly are its residents.
For Mobile form, studies have shown that higher
densities of people mean that pedestrians move faster;
higher densities of traffic suggest that there are greater
amount of heavy metals and dust in the atmosphere and;
higher densities of advertising hoardings pertaining to
alcohol result in greater alcohol consumption in adults.
These relationships are moderate in terms of strength.
For People-Individual & social (population density),
as with Built form-Dwellings. the relationships are
moderate and varied. At a social level, it appears that
higher population densities lead to less satisfaction with
privacy, less cognitive development, less casual neigh-
bouring, less wage inequality and less personal and
property crime. It also leads to more crowding and
perceptions of crowding, depression and withdrawal,
hospitalisation for men with schizophrenia, more
frequent contact with unfamiliar others, greater regrrla-
lion of contact, more suburban diversity and more
susceptibility to global spillover effects (related to poorer
countries as well). In some instances, varying pnpulalinn
densities-low, medium and high densities-also will
impact satisfaction and neighbourhood quality. From an
employment perspective, higher densities attract people
from the creative industries as well as lowerenhancement
costs for using the Internet, but firms participating in the
Internet prefer lower density areas. From a transportation
perspective, higher population densities increase transit
mode choice and public transit use, and decrease car
ownership and use, fuel consumption, urban car travel
demand, vehicular accidents and public transit operating
costs. From a health perspective, higher population
densities lead to greater resistance to pathogens (e.g..
tuberculosis). However, decrements in physical activity
time are also found, whereas differential population
densities-low. medium and high-lead to more or less
leisure walking, thus forming a relatively weak relation-
ship. From a utility perspective, higher population
densities are moderately equated with more energy use
and exterior access space. At a governance level, a
statistically significant relationship shows that govern-
ment expenditure per capita was greater when population
densities were higher, and infrastructure expenditure was
both higher and lower depending on the population
density (higher expenditure with populations over
500,000 and lower with populations less than
500,000). Finally, from a biological perspective, higher
population densities may result in greater concentrations
of bacteria and lower water quality.
In People-Individual & social (nei,ghbourhood
density), there is a positive and relatively moderate
association between neighbours as friends and the
density of a neighbourhood. However, a negative
relationship exists between liking neighbours as friends
and neighbourhood density. This indicates that the
denser the neighbourhood, the more likely it is that
one's neighbours will be one's friends, but it is less
likely that they will be liked as friends. In addition, a
negative relationship exists between high densities and
neighbourhood attractiveness, good maintenance and
infrastructure and good parking facilities. That is, the
higher the neighbourhood density, the less attractive the
neighbourhood will be, and the less likely there will be
adequate infrastructure, places to park one's vehicle or
sufficient maintenance strategies to deal with neigh-
bourhood issues. In high-density neighbourhoods with
heavy commercial uses, employment opportunities will
be greater, but people's sense of safety will be low and
there will be fewer opportunities for social interaction.
In People-lndivid~dnl& sorial (household density),
some contradictions exist, suggesting relatively weak
associations between variables. For example, higher
hnu~ehnlddensities (i.e ,more people living in a family,
however that is defined) signify a greater amount of
leisure time spent w ~ t hhousehold members, yet people
reported that their quality of family life suffered. They
also expressed more of a desire to leave their present
home and neighbourhood when household density was
high. Furthermore, the higher the household density, the
more likely it is that one will recognise one's
neighbours. However, higher household densities also
suggest that people will less likely get to know one's
neighbours.
In People-Organisational, a moderate relationship
was found, suggesting that higher employment densities
in an area resulted in more patents per capita, more
pedestrian casualties and more public transit and
walking trips (i.e., when employment densities were
between 50 and 124 employees per hectare and greater
than 186 employees per hectare).
The final category, Miscellaneous densiry, as
expected, the relationships between density and other
variables are diverse, both in terms of direction and
strength, with none showing very strong, positive or
negative connections. Depending on the type of density
under study, the following relationships with higher
dwelling densities were found (the type of density is
identified in the parentheses): at the social level, there
was more psychological strain (household and build-
ing), noise (dwelling and population), pupil attainment
(school and population), stronger-yet fewer-social
relationships (dwelling and population) and social
sustainability in developing countries (household and
population), and less housing affordability and access to
green-space (both dwelling and population; the former
also involved perceived neighbourhood). People living
in higher densities also were more likely to be
Caucasian, married, have a college degree and own a
home and a car. From a business angle, higher densities
led to more innovation and patent activity (both urban
and population) as well as greater employment
opportunities (dwelling and population). Fmm a
transportation perspective, there were more pedestrian
casualties (population, employment and trafic node)
and personal business trips (population and employ-
ment), and greater travel behaviour (dwelling, popula-
tion, population and employment, employment, lot
coverage and bus stop); walking, cycling and public
transportation use and (dwelling, population and
perceived neighbourhood); walking for transportation
(see 'greater travel behaviour'). Furthermore, there was
less car use. non-work trips (both dwelling and
population), walking for leisure purposes, travel
walking (both, see 'greater travel behaviour') and
travel to work (dwelling and population). At a
functional level, higher population densities suggest
less floor space per person, greater infrastructure
efficiency (both dwelling and population) and environ-
mental performance (dwelling, address, building,
buildings with addresses and population). Finally, from
an environmental perspective, higher densities were
positively associated with air and water pollution
(dwelling, population and perceived neighbourhood),
water quality degradation and electrical conductivity in
streams (both road and septic tank).
Based on this collection of information, several
generic findings emerge. First, higher densities appear
to support public transport (including walking for
transportation, mode choice, and operating costs) and
create opportunities for less private transport use and
ownership (including fuel consumption, frequency and
amount of trips). However, there are more pedestrian
casualties and people walk less for leisure purposes in
higher, versus lower, densities. Second, in terms of
energy, higher-density buildings are more efficient than
lower density buildings in that they d o not lose heat as
easily and emit less GHG. The relationship between
infrastructure efficiency and density is less clear,
however. Third, at a psychological level, individuals'
mental well-being seems to be mostly negatively
affected by higher densities, resulting in depression,
withdrawal, strain, poorer quality of family life and
cognitive development, less privacy and friendliness
and, in some instances, hospitalisation. Comparatively,
physical health does not fare much better: higher
densities contribute to increases in incidences of
adolescent obesity, poorer heart rates and drinking
amongst adults. Fourth, whilst higher densities d o not
appear to benefit people much at a psychological or
physical level, there is some benefit at a social level:
people are better able to regulate contact with others
(including unfamiliar others) and have neighbours as
friends (even though they may not like their neighbours
or like casual neighbouring) than similar people living
in lower density dwellings. Also, higher densities create
better social situations in terms of equality and mixed-
tenure (including affordable housing) than do lower
densities. Finally, higher densities of plants and some
animals (e.g.. birds) have tangible benefits to urban
areas in terms of ecological sustainability.
7. Conclusions: a re-conceptualisation of density
The above generic findings illustrate that density is
an important concept within the design of the urban
environment, and represent more than a ratio of units to
a given area (i.e., the 'hard' element). Density also
pertains to 'softer' elements that emphasise the human
dimensions of density-perception, behaviour and
 C.Z Boyko, R. Cooper/Progr*ss in Planning 76 (201 1) 1 4 1
needs-as well as the quality and context of immediate
and surrounding environments (see Cohen & Gutman,
2007; Day & Day, 1973; Rarnan, 2010; Rao, 2007;
Rapoport, 1975). To that end, we have developed a new
conceptualisation of density that incorporates both the
'hard' and 'soft' elements (see Fig. 5).
The reconceptualisation of density illustrates that,
for density to be a viable concept within practice and
policy, decision-makers must consider all three dimen-
sions together in a more holistic, joined-up (Dave,
2010), and dynamic manner. For example, a transporta-
tion planner is thinking about infrastructure needs for
new and existingdevelopmentsin an area and how those
needs fit into the surrounding context. He or she
calculates the density of new and proposed bus stops in
an area M) that supportive infrastructure can be added
(e.g., bus shelters with real-time information signs) to
achieve a proper balance between the density of users
and the bus service being offered. Other decision-
makers (e.g., residents, local businesspeople)may make
decisions about whether to live, work or stay in the area,
based not only on this density of transport, but also on
the quality of the transport and associated infrastructure.
Even if the transport planner decides to instal many bus
stops in an area, the quality of bus stops may be poor
(e.g., no seating, no transit route maps) or the frequency
of buses may be nominal. In addition, individual
perceptions of the safety regarding the use of the stops
and the buses may be low because of contextual factors
(e.g., high crime rate in the neighbourhood). Thus, it
Qualities of
the physical
& ambient
environment
form and people-and that empirical evidenceexists for
Fig. 5. New conceptualisation of density.
will not matter how dense the bus stops become: the bus
service will be under-utilised. Therefore, it is important
for the transport planner to know about the 'softer',
more qualitative side of density in addition to the
'harder', more quantitative side when making decisions
about density.
7.1. Density policy
Based on the work in this paper, the authors believe
that, for density policy to be truly effective, three issues
need to be considered: flexibility, versatility and an
understanding of the 'hard' and 'soft' elements of
density. First, although having a common base from
which to start is helpful to avoid confusion in tern and
measures (DETR, 1998), density policy needs to be
more flexible and responsive to the context in which it is
to be delivered. The common base may involve
definitions of density used in policy that, for example,
could be similar across different levels of government-
and some of the definitions provided in Table 1 show
commonalities at different scales of development.
However, policy must not be overly deterministic in
its language so as to prevent innovative solutions for
local and regional density-based problems (Haughton &
Hunter, 1994).
Second, policy needs to be more versatile in its
conceptualisation of density. At the moment, spatial
density in policy terms is viewed mostly as the number
of dwellings per area. However, domestic buildings,
both existing and new, cover only 1.l% of England's
total area (Aldred, 2010). Of the remaining 11.9% that
is built upon, there are other land uses and forms for
which density policies could be formulated. The
taxonomy of density, as outlined in Fig. 1, provides a
useful starting point for policy-makers as they try to
develop guidance for density. The taxonomy illustrates
that density is comprised of many different types-
natural form, built fonn, mobile material form, static
various relationships with density, some of which can
profoundly impact the design and use of urban
environments. Furthermore, there is the potential for
the taxonomy to show contradictions between different
types of densities (DETR,1998). For example, greater
densities of alcohol premises and advertising hoardings
in high-density, poorer neighbourhoods may lead to
greater instances of alcoholism. Only making planning
or design decisions on one type of density relationship,
such as high-density, poorer neighbourhoods having
higher rates of alcoholism, may neglect underlying
contributions for alcoholism, such as the density of
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Pmgress in Phnning 76 (2011) 1-61
alcohol premises and advertising hoardings. Finally, the
taxonomy can highlight how the different densities may
inform policies in other areas (e.g., density of trees can
help strengthen or guide policies on biodiversity)
(DETR, 1998). Overall, knowing more about the
different density types and their relationships with
other issues need to be more fully understood, and
additional research should help provide the detail;
nonetheless, the taxonomy at least equips policy-
makers with the notion that density is more than
dwellings, and that relevant policy should be written
that takes these other types of density into account.
Third, policy should include both the 'hard' and
'soft' elements of density. Currently, policies focus on
the 'hard' dimension (i.e., the quantitative calculation),
providing figures or ranges for 'optimum' densities in
specific areas. However, a greater understanding of the
needs and expectations of different stakeholders and
decision-make- well as the surrounding physical
and ambient environment, which includes adjacent land
uses-are required for density-based solutions to meet
the needs of these groups (Churchman, 1999). The re-
conceptualisation of density in Fig. 5 offers policy-
makers some guidance as to what should be explored in
order for density policies to be of more practical use in
the design of urban environments, and hints at what
other already-researched policy issues connect with this
new conceptualisation (e.g., quality of life). For
example, to combat increasing respiratory disease in
residents living in heavily trafficked areas, policy-
makers may need to provide car park, road andlor
vehicle density limits. To be effective, however, the
density policy would need to incorporate the density
limit calculation alongside guidance about the context
of the heavily trafficked areas (e.g., found using local
authority quality of life indicators) as well as
information about residents' perceptions about the
traffic and associated air pollution.
The aim of this paper was twofold: (1) to bring some
clarity to the complexity surrounding density and (2) to
reconceptualise density in new ways. This review has
provided detailed background information on what
density is; why it is considered in planning, architectwe
and urban design; how it can be better represented using
a taxonomy and; how it can be better conceptualised to
incorporate both 'hard' and 'soft' elements. With
this solid background, gaps can now be addressed in
terms of identifying the relevant density issues that
decision-makers, policy-makers and practitioners need
to consider when designing urban environments, when
density should be addressed in the urban design and
developmentJplanning process, who makes density
decisions and so forth. New questions also can be
asked, new relationships between relevant issues can be
formed and new ways of understanding can be
developed that help to explain the importance of
density in making progress in planning. This paper,
therefore, represents a starting point for understanding
density and provides a baseline from which more
detailed research can inform our understanding of
interrelated concepts and how they should, in turn,
inform planning, architecture and urban design.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this review was made possible through the
UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council's SustainableUrban Environments2 programme
(EP/F007426/1).
References
Aldred, T. (U)IO). Arrest development:Are we building houses in the
right places? London: Centre for Cities.
Alexander, E. (1993). Density measures: A rwiew and analysis.
Journal ofArchitectum1and Planning Research, 10(3). 181-202.
Alexander, D., & Tomalty, R. (2002). Smart growth and sustainable
development: Challenges, solutions and policy directions. Local
Environment, 7(4), 397409.
Alexander, E.R., Reed, K. D., & Murphy, P. (1988). Densitymeasures
and their relation to urban fonn. Milwaukee, WI: Center for
Architecture and Urban Planning Research. University of WIS-
consin-Milwaukee.
Alonso, W. (1964). Location and hnd m:Towada ge~cmltheory of
land rent. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Alterman, R. (1997). The challenge of farmland preservation: Lessons
€mm a six-nation comparison.Journal of the American Planning
Associon'on, 63(2), 22G243.
Altman, 1. (1975). The envimnment and social behavior: Privucy.
territoriali@ cmwdihg and personal space. Monterey, CA:
Brooks-Cole.
Amato. P. R. (1980). City size, sidewalk density, and friendliness
towards strangers. The Journal of Social Psychology. 111,
151-152.
Anderson. W. P., Kanaroglou. P. S., & Miller. E L (1 996). Urban form.
energy, and the environment: A review of issues, evidence, and
policy. Urban Studies, 33(1), 7-35.
Ameberger, A., & Haider, W. (2005). Social effects on crowding
preferences for urban forest visitors. Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening, 3(34), 125-136.
Aurand, A. (2010). Density, housing types and mixed land use: Smart
tools for affordable housing? Urban Studies, 47(5), 1015-1036.
Aurora, A. L., Simpson, T. R., Small, M. F., & Bender, K. C. (2009).
Towards i n m i n g avian diversity: Urban wildscapes programs.
Urban Ecosystem, 12,347-358.
Bagley, C. (1974). The built envimnment as an influence on person-
ality and social behaviour: A spatial study. In D. Canter & Lee
(Eds.). Psychology and the built envimnment. London: Wiley.
Baldassare, M. (1977). Residential density, household crowding, and
social networks. In C. S. Fischer, R. M. Jackson, C. A. Stueve, K.
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progr
Gerson, L.Jonts. & M. Baldarsare (Eds.), Nerworks andplaces
@p. 101-1 15). New York: Free Press.
Bannister, D. (1992). Energy use, aansponand settlement panans. In
M. Bnheny (Ed.), S~tainabledevelopment ond urbanform @p.
16&181). London: Pion.
Barbosa. O., Tmtalos, J. A.. Armswonh. P. R, Davics, R. G., Fuller, R.
A., Johnson, P., et al. (2007). Who benefits from access to green
space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landscape and Urban
Plunning, 83(2-3). 187-195.
B,- L, Duda. A., Pybus, 0. G., & Thornas, M. G. (2010). Ancient
urbanization predicts genetic resistance to tuberculosis. Evolution
lO.IIII/j.I558-5646.2010.01132~
Baron, R. M., & Rodin, J. (1978). Fkmnal conml as a medium of
crowding. In Baum, A.. Singer. J., & Valins. S. Eds. A d v ~ c e sin
environmental p~~c]rology. Vol. l (pp.145-190). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Baron, R. M., Mandel, D. R., Adams, C. A.,& Griffen, L.M. (1976).
Effects of social density in university residential environments.
Jouml of Pemnality and Social psych do^ 3 4 . 4 3 M .
Bartholomew, K. (2007). Land usetmusportation scenario planning:
Remise and reality. ~mpomion. 34(4), 397412.
Barton. H. (Ed.). (m). Sustain& conununizies: The potentialfor
eco-neighbou-. London: Earthscan.
Batty, M. (2008).The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science, 319,
769.
Batty, M.. Besussi. E, Mast, K.,& Harts. J. J. (2003). Representing
m u l t i m n a l cities: Dense and diversity in space and time.
UCL wonking paper series, paper 71. London: UCL.
Baum, A.,& Kornan, S. (1976). Differential response to crowding:
Psychological effects of social and spatial density. Journal of
Personality and Social psycho log^ 34.52&536.
Baum, A., & Paulus. P. (1987). Crowding. In D. Stokols & I. Altrnan
(Eds.), Handbook of e n v i m n t a l psychology @p. 533-570).
New York:Wiley.
Baum, A., & Valins. S. (1973). Residential environments, group size
and crowding. Pmeedings of the Eighty-First Annual Conven-
tion, Psychological Association, 21 1-212.
Baum, A.. & Valins. S. (19'77). Architechm and social bchavior.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbawn.
Baum, A.. & Valins, S. (1979). Architectural mediation of residential
density and con& Crowding and the regulation of social wnml.
In L. Berkowitz (M) .
Ad~unces in rrprrimmtal socialpsycholo-
gy. New York Academic.
Baum, A., Aiello, J., & Calesnick, L. (1978). Crowding and
personal control: Social density and the development of learned
helplessness. Jounrnl of Personality and Social Psychology. 36,
1m1001.
Baum, A, Fisher, J., & Solomon, S. (1981). ?Lpe of information,
familiarity, and the reduction of crowding seess. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 40,11-23.
Baum, A.. Harper. R.. & Valins, S. (1975). The mle of group
phenomena in the experience of crowding. Environment and
BehaviPr; 7, 185-197.
Baumont, C.,Ertur, C.,& Le Gallo, J. (2004). Spatial analysis of
employment and population density: The case of the agglom-
eration of Dijon in 1999. Geogmphicul Analysis, 36(2),
146-176.
Berghauscr Pont,M., & Haupt, P. (2007). Thc relation behmcn urban
form and density. V-ewpoints lI(I) Retrievedjbm h n p : / h .
urbanf~morg/oum&i~poin~iewpin~IO7.~.
Billing-Pemberton. L. Boyko. C.. Cadman.D.. & Cooper,R. (2009).
Thc urban dcsign decision-making process: Definitions and issues.
In R. Coopw,G. Evans. &C.Boyko W.) . sustainable
Designing
cities (pp. 3-16). London: Wiky-Blaclnvcll.
Bonan, G. B. (20). The microclimates of a suburban Colorado
(USA) landscape and implicationsfor planning and design. Land-
smpe and U h Planning, 49.97-1 14.
Bonncs, M., Bonaiuto, M., & h l a n i , A. P. (1991). Crowding and
residential satisfaction in the tlrban environment: A wntextual
approach. Environment and Behavwr; 23(5), 531-552.
Booth. A. (1976). Urban crowding and its consequences. New York:
F'raeger.
Borden, I. (1997). Space beyond: Spatiality and the city in the
writings of Georg S i l . The J o u d of Architcctun, 2,
313-335.
Both. C.. & Visser, M. E. (2003). Density dependence, tenitoriality,
and divisibility of resources: From optimality models to popula-
tion processes. The American Naturalirt. 161(2), 326-336.
Boyko. C., & Cooper. R. (2009). Urban design decision-making: A
new approach. In R. Cooper, G. Evans, & C. Boyko (Eds.).
Designing sustainable cities (pp. 4250). London: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Brain. P. (1984). Human aggression and the physical environment. In
H. L.Freeman (Ed.), Menral health and the environment.London:
Churchill Livingstone.
Bramley, G.. & Power,S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainabiiity:
The role of density and housing type. Envimmnt and Planning
B, 36.3W8.
Bramley, G.. Dunmorc, K., Dunsc, N.. Glbert, C., Thanos, S., &
Watkins. D. (2010). implications of housing type/size mix and
dcnsiry fbr the a$ordobility and viabiliry qf new housing supply.
Fareham: NHPAU.
Brehcny, M. (1992a). Sustoinable developmenr und ruban form.
London: Pion.
TTte controdictionsofthe compact ciry: A review. (1992). Brthcny. M .
(Ed.). SustainaMe development and urban form @p. 138-159).
London: Pion.
Breheny, M. (1996). Centrists, decentrists and compromisers: Views
on the fuhlre of urban form. In M. Jenks, E. Burton, & K. Williams
@ds.), 7Tte compact city: A swminuble urbanform? @p. 13-35).
London: E & PN Spon.
Breheny, M. (1997). Urban compaction: Feasible and acceptable?
Cities, 14(4), 209-217.
Breheny, M., & Gordon, I. (1996). Urban densities and travel behav-
iour. F!aper pnsented at the RGS-IBG annual confewnce.
Broberg. A.. & Kytrii, M. (2010). SoftGIS in planning for the em-
socially sustainable development. In P m e e d i n g s M the 24th
Associan'im of European Schools of Planning ( A m ) annual
cDllfemnce: Space is h ~ y .
Bmwnstone, D.. & Golob, T. E (2009). The impact of residential
density on vehicle usage and energy consumption. Jouml of
U h Econonrics, 65(1), 91-98.
Bu~chell,R. W., & Listokin, D. (Eds.). (1982). Energy and land use.
New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research. State University of
New Jersey.
Burchell, R. W., & Mukheii, S. (2003). Conventional development
versus managed growth: The costs of sprawl. Amcricm Journal of
Public Health, 93(9), 1534-1540.
Burton. E. (2000a). The compact city: Just or just compact? A
preliminary analysis. U h Studies, 37(1 l), 1969-2001.
Bunan, E (m). The poteatial of the compact city for promoting
social equity. In K. Williams, E. Burtan, & M. Jmks (Eds.),
Achieving sustainab& u h form (pp. 19-29). London: E &
FN Spon.
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Prognss in Planning 76 (2011) l41
Burton. E. (2002). Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and
cities. Environmeni and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29,
219-250.
Burton, T.,& Matson, L (1996). Urban foolprink Making the best
use of urban land and nsaurces. In M. Jmks, E. Burton. & K.
Wdliams (Eds.), fie compact city: A sustainable urbanfinn? (pp.
298-301). London: E & FN Spon.
Burton. E.. Williams, K., Jenks. M., & Entec. (1998). Urban intensi-
cation: Impacts and acceptability. Landon: DETR.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE).
(U)05). What it's like to liw there? Thc views of residents on the
design of new housing London: CABE.
Cadman, D., & Payne, G. (Eds.). (1989). 771.~living city Towards a
sustainabkfutun. London: Routledge.
Calthotpe, F! (1993). The ncxt Anwrican mtmpollisr Ecology, mm-
m i t y and the American dream. New York: Rinceton Architec-
tural Ress.
Camagni, R.. Gibelli, M.-C.. & Rigamonti. P. (2002). Urban
mobility and urban form: The social and environmental costs
of different patterns of urban expansion. EEobgical Economics,
40. 199-216.
Carlino. G. A.. Chattejee. S., & Hunt, R. M. (2007). Urban density
and the rate of invention. Journal qf Urban Economics, 61,
389419.
Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (1990). Grcen
paper on the urbon environment. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of thc Europn Communities.
Cervero. R. (1988). Land use mixing and suburban mobility. ?'MS-
portation Quarterly. 42(3). 4 2 M .
Cervero. R.. & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds:
Density, diversity and design. 7hqwrtation Research D. 2(3),
199-219.
Chan, Y.-K. (1998). Density, crowding, and factors interveningin their
relationship: Evidence from a hypcr-dense metropolis. Social
Indicawrs Research, 48. 103-124.
Chen, M.-J., Grube, J. W., & Gzucnewald, P. J. (2009). Community
alcohol outlet density and underage drinking. Addiction, 105,
270-278.
Cheng, V. (2010). Understanding density and high density. In E Ng
(Ed.), Designing high-density citiesfor social und envimntnental
sustainability (pp. 3-17). London: Earthscan.
Christoforidis, A. (1993). New alternatives to the suburb: Neo-
traditional developments. Journal of Planning Litemtun, 8(4).
42-0.
Churchman,A. (1999). Disentangling the concept of density. Journal
of Planning Litemtun, 13(4). 389-411.
Churchman, A.. & Ginsberg. Y.(1984). The image and experience of
high-rise housing in Israel. Jounral ofEnvimnntenral Psychology,
4(1), 2741.
City of Vancouver. (2008). Ecodensiry chaner. Vancouver: City of
Vancouver.
Clark. C. (1951). Urban population densities. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society. Series A, 64(4), 4-96.
Clarke, G.. & Callaghan, V. (2QO7). Ubiquitous computing, infma-
tization, urban structures and density. Built Environment. 33(2).
196212.
Cohen, M., & Gutman, M. (2007). Density: An overview essay. Built
Ettvimtvnent, 33(2), 141-144.
Cohen, S., & Sherrod, D. (1978). When density matters: Environ-
mental control as a detcnninant of crowding effects in
laboratory and residential settings. Journal of Population, l,
189-202.
Cohen. S., Glass. D., & Phillips. S. (1977). Environment and health. In
H. E. Fretman. S. Lcvine, & L. G. Reeder (Eds.). Handbook of
medical sociology. hglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Congressfor the New Urbanism. (1996). Chnnerofzhenew urbuni$m
Retrieved h m http:llwww.cnurnrg/charter.
Coutts. A. M., Beringer, J.. & Tapper. N. J. (2007).Impact of
increasing urban density on local climate: Spatial and temporal
variations in the surface energy balance in Melbourne, Australia.
Jouml of Applied Meteomlogy & Climatology, 46.477-493.
Cox, W., & U#,J. (2lXM). costs of spmwl mconsidend: Whar the
data really show. Washington, DC: National Academy Ress.
Cramer. V.. Torgersen. S.. & Kringlen, E. (2lXM). Quality of life in a
city: The effect of population density. Social indicators Reseamh,
69(1). 103-1 16.
Dargay, J.. & Hanly. M. (2004). Land use and mobility. Unpublished
paper presented at the World Conference on Transport Research.
Istanbul. m y .
Dave, S. (2010). High urban densities in developing countries: A
sustainable solution? Built Envimnment, 36(1), 9-27.
Dave. S. (201 1). Neighbourhood density and social sustainabilityin
cities of developing countries. Susfainable Devebpmnt, 19.
189-205.
Daviq B. N. K. (1978). Urbanisationand the diversityOfinsectS. In L. A.
Mound & N. Waloff (Eds.). DivemitypfiRscctf~(pp.126-1 38).
Oxford. Blackwell Scientific.
Day, A. T.. & Day. L. H. (1973). Cross-national comparison of
population density. Science, 181(4104). 1016-1023.
Depmment for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).
(2006). P h i n g policy s t o t e w 3 (PPS3): Housing. London:
HMSO.
Dc Roo, G.. & Miller, D. (2000). Compact cities and sururinable
urban development. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Dean. L. M,, Pugh,U. M.. & Gunduxon, E. K. E. (1975). Spatial and
perceptual components of crowding: Effects on health and satis-
faction. Envimnment and Behavior; 7,335-336.
Depmment for Environment, Food and Rural mrs (DEFRA).
(2010). hvclling d e n s i ~ e m g edensity of new housing,
1994, 2UO3 mrd 2008 Retrieved from http:lhmvw..dcfra..gov.uW
sustaiaab1elg0~emment~prognss/regionaVswnmarie~htm.
Department of the Environment and Local Government. (1999).
Residcnrinl density: Guidelinesfor planning authorities. Dublin:
TSO.
Dempsey, N., & Jenks. M. (2010). The future of the compact city. Built
Environntent, 36(1). 116121.
Dengel, D. R., Hearst, M. O., Harmon, J. H.. Forsyth. A., & Lytle, L.
A. (2009). Does the built environment relate to the metabolic
syndrome in adolescents? Health dt Place, 15(4),946-951.
Desor, J. A. (1972). Toward a psychological theory of crowding.
Jouml of Pcmonality and Social Psycholom 21,7943.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR).
(1998). Planning resemhprpgrawne: The use of drnsity in Unbutt
planning. London: TSO.
Deutschman, H. D., & Jaschik, N. L. (1968). Income and related
transportation and land W planning implications. Highway Re-
search Recod 240,5265.
DiPasqualc. D.. & Wheaton. W. C. (2006)).Urbaneconomics and rcal
estate markeu. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dixon. T.,Pocock, Y.. & Wattrs. M. (2006). The role of the UK
development W t r y in btvwnficldngenemtwn. Stage 2: Volume
3 (of 3): Case $&s (Tkme$Gateway and Gwater Manchesrcr):
Sum-. Oxford: Department of Real Erme and Construction.
Oxford BrookCS University.
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progrw s in Planning 76 (2011) 1 4 1
Dobed, R., & Giordano, L. (2007). Morphology of density. Built
Environment, 33(2), 185-195.
D e p m t of Environment (DOE).(199%). The effecrsof major out
of town wail developnu. tondon: HMSO.
Dep-t of Environment (DOE). (1992b). Houses into m: A
study ofprivate sector comrsiom in London (Ml. 1-2). London:
HMSO.
Depamnent of Environment (DOE). (1993). Crinrc pnvmrion on
council estates. London: HMSO.
Deparhnentof Environment m). (1994). Sustainable development:
m e UK strategy. Londoo: HMSO.
Downs. A. (1991). The need for a new vision fir the dntcloptnent of
Lrge U.S.mtmpolitan anas. New York: Salomon Brothers.
Duke. M-. & Nowick, S. (1972). A new mwure and social learning
model for interpersonal distance. Journal of Erperimentd Re-
semh in Personali@ 6, 11%132.
EC-. (1993). Reducing transport emissions thtvugh planning.
London: HMSO.
Edwards, J. N.. Fuller, T. D.. Sanssi, S.. & Cbrakitphokatom. S.
(1990). Chronic -ss and pychological well-being: Evidence
from Thailand on housing crowding. Paper presented ot the world
congress of s0~w10g-y.
Elkin, T., McLarcn, D., & Hillman, M. (1991). Reviving the city:
Towards sustainable urban dcwlopmcnt. London: Friends of the
Earth.
Epstein, Y., & Karlin, R A. (1975). Effects of acute experimental
crowding. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5.34-53.
Evans. G. W. (1979). Behavioral and physiological consequences of
crowding in humans. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9,
2746.
Evans. G. W., & Cohen, S. (1987). Environmental stress. In D. Stokols
& I. Altman (W.Handbook
), of e n v i r o ~ n t apsyahology
l @p.
571410). New York. Wiley.
Evans. G. W.. Palsane. M. N.. Ltporc. S. J., & Martin. J. (1989).
Residential density and psychological health: The mediating
a c t s of social suppori. Journal of Personalily and Social
Psychology, 57, 994-999.
Evans, G. W., Lepore, S. J., & Schroedcr, A. (1996). 'Ihe role of
architsetwe in human response to crowding. Journal @Personal-
ity and Social psycho log^ 70.4 146.
Evans, G. W., L e p , S. J., Shejwal, B. R., & Palsane, M. N. (1998).
Chsonic residential crowding and childrtn's well-being: An eco-
logical pempective. Child Development, 69. 1514-1523.
Evans. G.. Aiesha, R., & Food. J. ( m ) . Urban sustainability:Mixed
use or mixed messages? In R. Cooper, G. Evans, & C. Boyko
(Eds.). Designing sustainabIc cities @p. 189-217). London:
W~ley-Blackwell.
Evans. G. W.. Ricciuti. H. N., Hope, S., Schoon, I., Bradley. R. H.,
Cnwyn. R. F., et al. (2010). Crowding and cognitivedevelopment:
The mediating role of maternal responsiveness among 36-month-
old children. ERYiro~~cnr and Behavioz 42(1). 135-148.
Ewen, C.. Anagnostpoulw, M. A.. & Ward, N. L. (2009). Monitoring
of heaw metal levels in roadside dusts of Thessaloniki. Greece in
relation to motor vehicle traffic density and flow. Envimmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 157.483-498.
Ewing, R. (1W). Ls Los Angeles style sprawl dcsible? Journal of
the Amerim Plming Associnrion, 63(1). 107-126.
Pisher, P. F. (1999). Models of uncertainty in spatial data. In P. A.
Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire, & D. W. Rhind
(Eds.), Geogmpkicol informrvion system: Principles, techni-
ques, applications, management @p. 191-m). Chichester:
Wlcy . Journal of Urban Economics, 63,631450.
Fleming. L. Baum. A.. & Weiss, L. (1987). Social density and
pe~eivedcontrol as mediators of crowding stress in high-density
residential neighbourhoods. Journal of Personality and Social
Psycko&%y,52,8!+906.
Florida, R. (2010, September). The power of density. nLc Atlantic
Accessed from hrtp://www.thcgtlantic.co~~incsalarchivel
2010/09hbe-power-of-denSityI62569/.
Forman, C., Goldfarb. A.. & Greenstein, S. (m). How did location
&ct adoption of the CO-rcial Internet? Global village, h
leadership and industry composition National Bureau of Eco-
nomic Research (NBER)working paper no. 9979 Cambridge, MA:
NBER.
Forman, C., Goldfarb, A., & Greenstein, S. (m). How did
location affect adoption of the commercial Internet? Global
village vs. urban leadership. Journal of Urban Economics,
58(3), 389-420.
Forsyth. A. (2003). Measuring density: Wrking &$nitions fbr resi-
dcnrialdens~and building intensip &sign brkf 8.Minneapolis,
MN: Design Center for American Urban Landscape. University of
Minnesota.
Forsyth, A., Oakes,J. M., Schmitz, K. H., & Hearst, M. (2007). Does
residential density increase walking and other physical activity?
UnbM Studies, 44(4). 679497.
Forsyth, A., Hearst, M., Oakes, J. M., & Schmitz, K. H. (2008). Design
and destinations: F a c m influencing walking and total physifal
activity. Urban Studies, 45(9). 1973-19%.
Frank, L. D.. & Pivo, C. (1994). Impacts of mixed use and density on
utilization of three modes of travel: Singlc-occupant vehicle,
transit, and walking. lhmportarion R e s m h Record. 1466,
44-52.
Freedman. J. L. (1975). Crowding and behavior. San Francisco. CA:
WH Fneman.
Freedman. J. L.. Wevansky, S., & Ehrlich. P. R. (1971). Thc effect of
crowding on human task performance. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 1.7-25.
Fretdman, J. L., Levy, A. S., Buchanan, R. W., & Price, J. (1972).
Crowding and human aggressiveness. J o d of Experimental
Social PsycIIdogy, 8,528-548.
Freeman. H. L. (1984). Mental health and the environment. LonLondon:
Chumhill Livingstone.
Freeman, H. (1992). The environment and mental health. Sfmefwise,
11. 22-28.
Fruin. J. J. (1971). P e & s t h planning and design. New York:
Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental
Planners.
Fulford, C. (1996). The compact city and the market: The case of
residential development. In M. J&. E. Burton, & K. Williams
(Eds.). The compact city: A susrainable urban fbnn? @p. 122-
133). London: E & FN Spon.
Fuller, T. D., Edwards, J. N.. .-S S., & Vorakitphokatom. S.
(1993). Housing. stress. and physical wellbeing: Evidence from
Thailand. Social Scier~~e and Medicine, 36, 1417-1428.
Gabe, J.. & Williams. F! (1987). Women. hwsing and mental health.
International J o d of Health Services, 17,667479.
Gaia Planning. (1996). Energy conseNafionandplanning. Edinburgh:
Thc Scottish m c e .
Gaston, K J., Warren, P. H., Thompon, K., &Smith, R. M. (2005).
Urban domestic gardens (W):Thc extent of the resource and its
associated features. Biodiversity and Conservation. 14,
3327-3349.
Gibbons, S.. & Silva. 0. (2008). Urban density and pupil attainment.
 C.l: Boyko, R. Cooper/Progrrss in Planning 76 (2011) I41
Gillham, 0. (2002).The linutless city: A primer on the urban spmwl
debate. Washington. DC: Island Press.
Gillis, A R. (1983). Swangm next door: An analysis of density,
diversity, and scale in public housing projects. Tke Gonodion
Joumal OfSociology, 8(1). 1-20.
Giridharan, R., Lau, S. S. Y., Ganesan. S., & Givoni, B. (2008).
Lowering the outdoor temperam in high-rise high-density resi-
dential developments of coastal Hong Kmg: The vegetation
influence. Buikding and Environment, 43(10). 1583-1595.
Givoni, B. (1989). Unban design in different climates. Geneva: World
Meteorological Organimtion.
Givoni, B. (1998). Climate considcmtions in building and wban
&sign. New Yorlr:Van Nosband Reii-hold.
Glaeser, E. L., & Kahn. M. (2008). The greenness @cities. Cam-
bridge, M A : John F Kennedy School of Gowmment Hatvard
University.
Glaeser. E. L., & Resseger, M. G. (2010). The complementarity
between cities and skills. J o u d of Regional Science, w1).
221-244.
Glass, D. C.. & Singer. J. E. (1972). Urban stress: hpen'nrenrs on
noise and social sncssors. New Y& Academic h s .
G&-Jacinto, L., & Hornbradas-Mendieta, I. (2002). Multiple
effects of household and community cmwding. Journul of Envi-
m ~ ~ m rPsychology,
ol 22,233-246.
Goodchild. B. (1984). Housing layout, housing quality and residential
density. Housing Review, 33(4). 13&13 1.
Goodchild. B. (1985). The significance of density. Housing Review
34(4), 126129.
Goodchild. B. (1994). Housing design. urban fonn and sustainable
development. Town and Counny Planning, 65(2), 143-157.
Godon, R,& Ikoda, S. (2011). Does density m a W In A. Andasson,
D. B Andersson, & C. Mellandw (Eds.), Hudbmk of cnurive
cities. Cheltenham: Edwad Elgar, in press.
G d c y . F. P. & Akllo. J. R. (1982). Social density, interpersonal
relationships, and residential cmwding strcss. Journal @Applied
Social Psycholo~,12.222236.
Gove, W. R., & Hughes, M. (1983). Ove*cmwding in the household.
New York: Academic Press.
Graharn, D. J., & Glaistcr, S. (2003). Spatial variation in road
pedestrian casualties: The role of urban scale, density and land
use mix. Urban Studies, 40. 1591-1607.
Grammenos, F. (2011). European u r b a n k Lrmm firm a city
without sub* Accessed from http://www.planelanetizen.coml
W48W5.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Jouml
of S o c i o l o ~78(6), 136&1380.
Grifiit, W. & Veitch. R. (1971). Hot and crowed: Muenm in
population density and temperature on interpersonal affective be-
havior. Jo-1 of Persdiiry and Social Psychologx 17,9248.
Guiliano. G. (1991). Is jobs-housing balance a tmnsponofionissue?
Berkeley, CA: University of California Tmnsportation Centw.
Hall, F! (1999). S w t a i d k cities or mwn cmmming? London: Town
and Country Planning Association.
Hall, M., & Lee, B. (2010). How diverse are US suburbs? Urban
Studies, 47(1), 3-28.
Halpcm, D. (1995). Mental health and the built envimnent: Mom
than brick and nwrtor? Oxon: Taylor and Frmcis.
Ham, Y.S.,Kobori, H., & Takasago, M. (2009). Effects of com-
bined sewage overflow and stormwater on indicator bacteria
concentrationsin Tarna Rivet due to the high population density
of Tokyo Metropolitan area. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 152, 459468.
Hammadou. H., Thomas. I.. VerhetPel. A.. & Witlox, F. (2008). How to
incorporate the spatial dimension in destination choice models:
The case of Antwerp. Transportation Planning and Tcchnolog~
31, 153-181.
Handy, S. (2005). Smart growth and the transpanation-land use
camection: What does the tell us? Inremtioml Regionul
Science Review, 28(2). 1 6 1 6 7 .
Harmon. J. P., & Andow, D. A. (2007). Behavioral mechanisms
underlying ants' density-dependent deterrence of aphideating
predators. Oikm, 116(6), 103Cb1036.
Hanies, K. (UK)6). Ropwty crimesand violence in United States: An
analysis of the influence of population density. lntemational
Journal of CriRn'nal Justice Sciences, 1(2), 24-33.
Hamis. R. J.. & Longley, P. A. (m). New data approaches for urban
analyak Modelling residential densities. Tmns~:fionsin GIS.
4(3), 2 17-234.
HATC.(2006).Housing space srandanlc A npn by MTCLIclfor the
Grcarer London Aruhoriy. Landon:Greater London Authority.
HATC. (2010). Room ro swing a cat? The amount and use of space in
new dwellings in London & the South East Illcley. West Yorkshire:
HATC Limited.
Hatt, B. E.. F l d e r . T. D., Walah. C. J., & Taylor, S. J. (m). The
influence of urban density and drainage infrastructure on the
concentrations and loads of pollutants in small streams. Environ-
mental Munagemens 34(1), 112-124.
Haughey, R. M. (2005). High-density dcvelopmenr: Myth and fact.
Washington, DC: Urban h d Institute.
Haughton. G., & Hunter, C. (1994). Susm.i&le cities. London:
Jcssica Kingsley.
Haughton, G., & Hunter, C. (2003). Sustai&le cities. London:
Routledge.
Heller, J. F., Gmff, B. D., & Solomon, S. H. (1977). Toward an
understanding of crowding: Thc rolc of physical interaction.
J o d of Personality and Social Psycholo~35, 183- 190.
Hcndcrson, L. F. (1971). The statistics of cmwd fluids. Nafurr, 229,
381-383.
Henry, J. A., & Dicks, S. E. (1987). Association of urban temperatwes
with land use and surface materials. Lanakcapc and Urban
Planning, 14.21-29.
Hillier, B., & Sahbaz. 0. (2009). Crime and urban design: An
evidencshsed approach. In R. Cooper, G. Evans. & C. Boyko
(Pds.), &signing sustaidle cities (pp. 162-185). London:
Why-Blackwell.
Hillman, M. (1996). In favour of the compact city? In M. Jenks. E.
Burfon, & K Williams W.) .compact city; A sustainable
The
urban fonn? @p. 3644). London: E & FN Spon.
Hitchcock. J. (1994). A primer on the we of density in hnd use
planning. Papers onplanning and&sign no. 41. Toronto. Canada:
Program in Planning, University of Toronto.
HM Govemmmt (1990). This common inJzetifance: Brirnm S' envimn-
mental strategy (cwmmdpqwr 12lW). London:HM Government.
HM Treasury. (m). Barker review of W we planning: Final
report-Rec~mmcndorwns. London: HM lhxsury.
Holcombe, R. C.. & Williams, D. W. (2008).The impact of population
density on municipal government expenditures. Public FiMnce
Review, 336(3), 359-373.
Holden, E.. & Norland. I. T. (2005). Three challenges for the compact
city as a sustainable urban f m : Household consumption of
energy and transport in eight residential areas in the Greater Oelo
region. Unbnn Srudies, 42(12), 2145-2166.
Howley. P. Scott, M.. & Redmond, D. (2009). Sustainabilityversus
liveability: An investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction.
 C.I: Boyb, R. Cooper/Progr
Journal of Envimnmental Planning and Management, 52,
847-864.
Huang, J., Lu, X. X., & Sellers, J. M. (2007). A global comparative
analysis of urban form: Applying spatid metric and remote
sensing. Lanakcape and urban planning, 84(4), 184-197.
Hui, S. C. M. (2001). Low energy budding design in high density
urban cities. Renewable Energx 24.627440.
Hurviw, P. M., Moudon. A. V., Rehm, C. D., Smichert, L. C., &
Drewnowski, A. (UX)9). Arterial roads and area socioeconomic
statusare predictorsof fast food restaurant density in King County,
WA. lnternatwnal J d of Behavioml NumIntionand Physical
Activity, 6 , 6 5 3 .
Inoue, S., Murase, N., Shimomitsu, T., Ohya, Y., Odagm, Y.,
Takiyama, T.. et al. (2009). Association of physical activity and
neighbourhood environment among Japanese adults. P m c h e
Medicine, 48.321-325.
Jabareen. Y. R. (2006). Sustainable uban foms-Their rypologies.
models. and concepts. Journal of Planning Mumrion and Re-
sea&, 26(1). 38-52.
J8oob. J. (1961). The &arh and l@ o f g m Americun cities. New
York: Random House.
Jain, U. (1987). The psychological consequences of cmwding. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
i'k languageandmeaning of densiw (2005). Jenks. M., & Dempsey, N.
(Eds.).Furu~tfimanddesignf o r s ~ ~ ~ b acities@.
ble 287-309).
Oxfwd: Architectural h
Jenks, M.. & Dcmpscy, N. (Eds.). (2007). Defining the neighbour-
hood. Challenges for empirical research. Town PIanning Review,
78(2), 1 5 s i n .
Jenks, M., Burton, E., & Williams, K. (Eds.). (19%). The compact
c@: A swmtcUMbb urban form? London: E & FN Spon.
Kamal-Chaoui, L., & Robert, A. (Eds.). (2009). Competitivecitiesand
climate change (OECD regional development working paper 2.
Paris: OECD.
Krrathodorou, N., Graham, D. l.,& Noland, R. B. (2010). Estimating
thc effect of urban density on fuel demand. Energy Economics,
32(1), 8-2.
Karlin. R. A., Epstein, Y. & Aiello, J. (1978). Strategies for the
investigation of awding. In A. Esser & B. Gmmbie W.),
Design for comunaliq and privacy. New YorL:Plenum.
Katz, P. (1994). The new urbankm Toward an architecture of
community. New York: MfGraw-Hill.
Kaya. N., & Erkip. (UX)l).Satisfactionin adcnmitorybuilding: The
effects of floor height on the perception of mom size and cmwd-
ing. Environment and Behavior; 33(1), 35-53.
Kennedy, M. (1995). Ekologisk suulplanering i Europa [Ecological
urban p h i n g in Eumpe] (Repon fmnr a seminnr series).
Gothenburg, Swedea: University of Gothenburg.
Kenworthy, J. R., & Laube, P. B. (1999). Patterns of automobile
dependence in cities: An international overview of key physical
and economic dimensions with some implications for urban
p o l i i Transpriation Research h r i A, 33,691-723.
Kitamura, R.. Mokhtarian. P. L.. & Laidet. L. (1997). A micro-analysis
of land use and travel in five neighborboods in the San Francisco
Bay Area ~ p o ~ i o 24(2). n , 125-158.
Knu- B.. Florida. R, Gates, G., & Stolarick. K. (2007). Urban
d ew cwiviry. and innovation (Working paper). Tomnto.
Canada: University of Tomnto, The Martin Prosperity Institute.
Kwate, N. 0. A., & Meyer, I. H. (2009). Association between
residential exposure to alcohol advertising and problem drinking
among African American women in New York City. American
Journal of Public Health, 99(2), 228-230.
Ladd. H. (1992). Population growth, density. and the carts of pmvid-
ing strvices. Urban Siudies, 290,273-295.
Langer, E. l., & Saegert, S. (1977). Crowding and cognitive control.
Journal of PErsondir~,and Social P$yckdom 35, 175-182.
London Borough of Hammersmith and Wham. (2007).Background
paper: Resideniial densifyreview 2#7. London: London Borough
of Hammersmith and Fblham.
Lepore, S. J., Evans, G. W., & Palsane, M. N. (1991). Social hassles
and psychological health in the context of chronic crowding.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior; 32,357-367.
Leviison. H., & Wynn, (1963). Effects of density on urban
transportationrequirements. Highway Research Reconl, 2 , 3 8 4 .
Li, S. (2010). Evolving residential and employment locations and
patterns of commuting under hyper growth: The case of Guangz-
hou. China. Urban ShuIies, 47(8). 1643-1661.
Li J.. &Rainwater, J. (2006). me realpicivn ofland rrrs &wiry and
crinzc: A GIS application. Retrieved 14 May M07 from http:/l
gis.esri.dbrary~d~pmfe~onaVpaperst
PAP508/p508.htm.
Lin. B. S., & Lin. Y. J. (2010). Cmliig effect of shade hw=s with
different characteristics in a subtropical urban park. Hon~cience~
45(1), 83-86.
Lindsay. M., Williams. K., & Dair. C. (2010). Is there room for privacy
in the compact city? Bdlt Environment. 36(1). 2846.
Litman, T. (ul04).UndcrstMding smrt growth savings: What we
know &out public injkas~nicrunand cost savings, and how rhey
am misrepmsenredby crirics. Victoria, Canada:Victoria Transport
Policy Institute.
Lltwtlyn-Davies. (1998). Sustainable residEntial qual@: New
appmhes to ruban living. London: London Planning Advisory
CommiUec.
Llewelyn-Davies. South Bank University & Environment Trust
Associates. (1994). % qrcaliry of LondonS' nsidcntial environ-
ment. London: London Planning Advisory Commintc.
Locantorc, J. K., Montago, A. S., Rudy, S. D., & Sabina, E. E. (2009).
Scenario analysis helps identify sustainable land use and trans-
portation policies. Projectio~,9, 106-1 18.
Longley, P. A.. & Harris, R. J. (1999). Towards a new digital
infrastructure for urban analysis and modelling. Environment
and Planning B, 26,855-878.
Loo, C. (1973). Important issues in researching the effects of
mwding on humans. Rrpraentarivc Research in Social Psy-
chology. 4,219-226.
Loo, C., & Ong, P. (1984). Crowding perceptions, attitudes, and
coosequences among the Chinese. Environment and Behavior;
16(1). 55-87.
Lonun,A, Warren, P. H., & Gaston. K. J. (UW)8). Urban domestic
gardens (XIV): The characteristics of gardens in five cities.
Enviromne&l Management, 42,361-376.
LSE. (2006). Density4 debate about the best way W house a
growing popularion. London: LSE.
Maeda. K.. Sato, K, h i s h i , K, Yamasdci, A., Uchiyama. A..
Yamaguchi, H., et al. (2005). Gerring urban p e d e s t r i a n ~ f r v m
simple observation: Realistic mobile generic in wireless network
swaiion.
Mandcl, D. R., Baron, R. M., & Fisher, J. D. (1980). Room utilization
and dimensions of density. Envimnment and Behavws 12(3),
308-3 19.
Marshall, S. (2010). Urban compactness: Indicators of a property
distinct from density. In Prvceedingsfrom the 24th Ass~ciationof
European Schools of Planning (AESOP) annual conference:
Space is luxury.
Manin, D. (1998. Wirer). 2001 Census output areas: From concept to
prototype. Population trpndr. 94. 19-24.
Maqnavi, M,-R. (2000). The new millennium and the new urban
paradigm: Thecompact city in practice. In K. Willinms. E. Runon.
&M. Jenks (E&.).Achieving rustainahle urbanf o r m (pp. &73).
London: E & M Spon.
Maxwell. L. E. (1996). Multiple effeca of home and day care
crowding. Envimnmnent and Behavim 28. 4 9 6 5 11.
Mayor of London. (2008). rhe tendon p l o n - h p r i o l drv~lopmenr
srmregy for grearer London. Consolidored with abemrions since
20%. London: Greater London Authority.
McCallum. R.. Rushult. C.. Hong. G.. Walden, 7.. & Schopler. J.
(1979). Effects of resource availability and imponanceofhehavinr
upon the experience of crowding. Jo88rnnl of Personaliry and
Sorinl Psvcholoxy, 37, 1304-1313.
Mclntym, N. E., Rango, J., Fagan. W. E, & Rcth, S. H. (2001).
Ground arthropod carnrnuniry srmcmre in a heterogeneous urban
environment. limdsenpr ond Urbnn Plannin~.52, 257-274.
Meyer, l. R., Kain, J. E, & Wohl. M. (1965). Tltr urban rransponarion
pmblcm. Boston. MA: Harvanl University &ss.
Mills. E. S. (1972). Sludies in the ilrucntre of rhe urban economy.
Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press.
Mills. G. S, Dunning, J. B., & Bater, I. M. (19R9). Effects of
urbanization on breeding bird community stmcture in Southwest
d e x n habitats. The Condol; 91(2). 416428.
Mitchell, R. E. (1971). Some social in~plicatiansof high density
housing. Briti.vh Journal of P.r.vcI~inln:36 18-29.
Mitehell. R., Manin. D.. & Fmdy. G. (1998). Unmixing aggregate
data: Estimating the social composition of enumeration districts.
Eln.imnment ond Planning. 30, 1929-1941.
Moss. R. H..Edmonds.I. A..Hihhard. K. A.. Manning. M. R..Rme.S.
K.. van Vuurcn, D. P. Caner. T R., Emori, S.. Ksinuma. M., Kram,
T.. Meehl. G. A.. Mitchell. I. F. B.. Nakicenovic. N.. Riahl. K..
Nakicenovic. N.. & Swan. R. (Us.). (2000). Sprrial n p n on
enti.~rims scenario.^ lfor tile iefemovcntmental mnel 018 climate
cban*.t) Camhndpe Camhrtdpe Ln~\ersnt)h e w
Mulholl~ndKcwarch m d Con\ulltne- .12tXI1) " . .r
. Perenrton,nr 01nnu.m
and denriry in l~ouring(mpon rm w.~earrhfndinprpmpred for
the Popular Hourinp Cmup). London: Mulholland Research &
Consulting.
Muth, R. F. (1969). Cirler and housing. Chicago: University of
Chicago Ress.
Naess,P. (1 997). Fyriskplanlegging og~nrrpibruk[Physicalplanninp
and enerlpv use]. Oslo: Tano Aschehoug.
National House-Building Council. (2007). Recommendnrions for
living or sup&-nsiry. London: Design for London.
Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning
Ellucnrim and Rcsmrch, 25(1). 11-26.
Newman. 0. (1973). D r f e n i i l ~ l space:
~ Crime pmvenfion thmugh
urban drsirn. NW York: Macmillan.
Newman. P,. & Kenwonhy. J. (19R9). Gasoline consumption and
cities: A comparison of US cities with a ~ . l o h asurvey.
l Journal of
the Amrrirort Plnnning As.~oriofion,55(l), 24-37.
Newman. P.. & Kenwonhy, J. (1991). Transpan and urban form in 32
of the world's principalcities. Tran.rpon R P Y ~ ~ Ill(31.249-272.
VS,
Newman. P,, & Kenwonhy, J. (1992). Is there a mle far planners'?
Journnl of the Ammrimn Plannin~Assminrion. 58(3). 353-361.
Newman, P,, & Kcnwonhy, J. R. (1999). Surrnin~lhiliryand cities:
O\~erconzingnufornabiledepend~ncr.Washington. DC: Island Press.
Newmn. P W (2010). Reyond greenfield and hmwntield: The chal-
lenge of regenerating Australia's greyfield suburbs. Builr Envimn-
mrnr. 36(1). 81-104.
Nnianal Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU). (2010). Thr
itnplicarions ~fl~ousing r)>pcL~ize
mix imlld~nsiryforfhc qfimiohil-
fry and viohiliry of new hou.sing supply. Titchtield. UK: NHPAU.
NiemelL 1. (19992) Fzology and urhan planning. Rbrliveni!,. and
Conservation. 8, 119-131.
Nicmclii. J. (I999b). Is there a need for a thwry of urban ecology?
Ud,m Ecos?srrms. 3. 57-65.
Norman. I., MacLean. H. L.. & Kennedy, C. A. (2006). Comparing
high and low residentialdensity: Life-cycle analysisafenergy use
and greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Urban Plnnning and
De~ulopmenr.132(1), 1W21.
Oakes. J. M,. Farsyth. A.. & Schmitr. K. H. (2007). The effects of
neighbourhmd density and street connectivity on walking hehav-
iour: The Twin Cities walking study. Epid~rniologicalPerspec-
rivcs & Innovnrions. 4. 4-16.
Officc of the Deputy Rime Ministcr (ODPM). (2000). Our cities aud
rowns: The furun-Deliverinp on urban renairxanec. London:
HMSO.
Office of the Deputy Rime Minister (ODPM). (2005). Plannin~policy
sroremenr. I: Dclivcrinc sustoinobk dcvelopmewt.London: HMSO.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). (2006). Seeurinp rbr
future: Delivuing UK sustainable de~,elopmrntslrctepy. London:
HMSO.
Oke, T. R. (1987). Boundmy layer elimares. London: Methuen.
Owen, D. (2009). C R Cmermpo1i.v: ~ W/!" lising smnllcr, livinl: clorer,
New York: River-
unrl d r i t , i n ~1c.r.s a m rhe k<\~sI,, srrsr~tin~~hiliry.
head Books.
Owen, N.. Cerin. E., Leslie. E.. duToit. L.. Coffee. N.. Frank. L. D.,
et al. (2007). Neighborhmd walkability and the walking behavior
of Australian adulL3. American Journal of Prrvmrive Medici#te,
33(5). 388-395.
Owens. S.E.(1987). The implirorinnr~fonrmnriv~ rumlrluvrlopmmr
p m r n r . Unpublished paper presented at The First International
Confcrcncc on Energy and Community Development. Athens.
Greece.
Owens. S. (1992). Energy. environmental sunainahility and land use
olannine. In M. Brehenv . .(W.).. Susminoble develonmenr and
;rlmnform (pp. 79-105). London: Pion.
Oyedepo, 0. S.. & Saadu. A. A. (2010). Evaluation and analysis of
noise levels in Ilorin metropolis. Nigeria. Envimnmrnral Moni-
toring and A.v.~es.vment,/M). 563-577.
Pautasso. M.. & Weisberg, P. J. (2008). Negative density-area rela-
tionships: The importance of the zeros. Global Ecol0g.y and
B i o ~ ~ o n m p 17. l z ~203-210.
Ponnov, B. A.. & Enell. E. (2001). Urbon clustering: Thr beneftsand
drowbaekr of locarion. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Pmshansky.H., Ittelsan, W.,& Rivlin, L. (1970). Fwcdom ofchoiceand
b~haviorinoph.~sicalsctrinx.Envimnmenral psychology: Man and
his physical setting. New York: Holi Reinhart, & Winston.
Pmshansky. H. M,. Ittelson. W. H.. & Rivlin. L. G. (1976). Envimn-
mennrlps~~chology: People nndrheitpIt,~~icaI.~e~~inp~r. New York:
Halt McDaueal.
h\hlnrer. R.. 7upan. J. (1976). Urlnrn ,lm~irirrfi>rpuhhrrro,,r-
panatio,n. Ncu, York: Tri-State Reyional Pldtminy .A~lntiniwdtiun.
hshksrev, B. S., Zupan, J. M,, & Cumella, R. S. (1982). Urban m i l i n
America: An exploration of criteria for . 1*rddcuidrwo)~tran.sit.
~
Blmmington. IN: Indiana University &ss.
Raman. S. (2010). Designing a liveable compact city: Physical f m a
ofcity and social life in urban neighbourhoods. Buill Em~imnmmr.
.36(l). 6 3 4 0 .
Rao. V. (2007). Proximity distances: The phenomenology ofdenairy in
Mumhni. BuiR Envimnntcnt. 33(2), 227-248.
 C.I: Boyko, R. Cooper/Ptvgr
Rapoport, A (1975). Toward a redefinition of density. Environment
Md Behaviol; 7(2). 133-158.
Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of u hfonn: To- a man-
ulviwnment appwach to urbon forn, a d dcpign. New York:
Pergamon.
Rcbelc, F. (1994). Urban ecology and special fcatms of urban cco-
systems. Global Ecology and Biogeography h r s , 4,17>187.
Reg&, W. C. (2008). Crowding in context: An examination of the
diffemmtial responses of men and women to highdensity living
envinnunents. Journalof Healthandsocial Behavw);49.254268.
Reidpath, D. D.. Burns, C., Garrard,J*, Mahoney, M.. & Townsend, M.
(2002). An ecological study of the dationship between social and
ewinnunentddetermirumuofobesity.Heal1 & Plorc, 8.141-145.
Rickaby. P. A. (1987). Six settlement patterns compared. Envimnrnent
and PIanning B. 14(2), 193-223.
Rodin, J. (1976). Density, perceived choice and responses to control-
lable and uncontrollable outcomes. J o d of Eyerimental So-
cial Psycholog): 12. -578.
Rodin, J.. Solomon. S.. & Metcalf. J. (1978). Role of control in
rnediaiing pmeptiws of density. Journal of Personalig and
Social Psychology, 36.989499.
RonceL, D. W. (1981). Dangerous places: Crime and residential
environment. Social Forces, @(l), 74-95.
Ruback, R. B.. & Pandey, J. (1992). Very hot and really crowded:
Quasi experimental investigations of Indian 'tempos'. Environ-
ment und Behavio);24(4), 524-527.
Rudlin. D., & Falk, N. (1999). Building the 2lsr cenruty home: The
sustainable neighbourhood. Oxford: Architectural Ress.
Rydin, Y. (1992). Environmental dimensions of residential dtvelop
ment and the implications for local planning practice. Journal of
Envimmenral Planning and Mmgemenr. 35(1), 4341.
Salon, D., Sperling, D., Meicr, A., Murphy, S.. Gorham, R., & Barntt,
J. (2010). City carbon budgets: A propod to align incentives for
climate-friendly communities. Enegy Policy, 38(4), 2032-2041.
Schiffcnbauu, A. L. Brown, J. E., Perry, L. K, Shulack, L. K., &
h w l a , A. M. (1977). The rtldonship between density and
crowding: Some architectural modifiers. Envimnment and Behav-
iol; 9(1), 3-14.
Schmidt, D. E., Goldman. R. D., & Feimer, N. R. (1979). Perceptions
of cmding: Redieting at the residence, neighborhood, and city
levels. Environment and Behaviol; 11, 105-130.
Schwamn, T.. Dieleman. F. M.. & Dijst, M. (2004). The impact of
metropolitan structureon commute behavior in the Netherlands: A
multilevel approach. Growrh and Change, 35(3). 304-333.
S c h w a (19%). The art oftke long v&. New YorL:Double Day.
Scoltham. E.. & Vale, B. (1996). How compact is sustainable: How
sustainable is compact? In M. Jenks. E. Burton, & K. Williams
(Eds.). The compact city: A susrainable urbanfonn? @p. 6673).
London: E & FN Spon.
Seta, J. J., Paulus, P. B., & Schkade, J. K. (1976). Effects of group size
and proximity under cooperative and competitive conditions.
Jouml of Personality and Social Psychdogx 34.47-53.
S h d D. R. (1974). Crowding, perceid control. and behavioral
after effects. Journal ofApplied Social Psycho10g)r 4, 17 1-1 86.
Shultz, S. D.. & King, D. A. (2001).The use of census data for hadonic
price estimates of open-space amenities and land use. Journal of
Red Ekrare Finance and EconomiCS. 22(2/3). 239-252.
Simel, G. (1950).Thernctmpolis and mental life(K Wolff.Tram.). In
D. Weinstein (Ed.),Z%esociology ofGeog Simmel (pp. 409424).
New Y & F- PIES. (original work published 1903).
S i o n . J., & Wekerle, G. (1987). Planning with scarce nsources: The
miniaturization of an urban ncighborhood. In W. Van Wet, H.
neighhrhod: lkoretical and empirical contnntnbutions @p.
173-189). Westport, W. Greenwood
Skinner,C. J. (Ul06).Urban density, metsorologyand rooftops. Unbnn
Policy and Resemh, 24(3), 355-367.
Small, K A.. & Vcrhoef, E. (20M). Thc economies o f urban tram-
portation. London: Routledge.
Smith, W. S. (1984). Mass transport for high-rise high-density living.
Jouml of Trrm~porlation Engineering, 110(6), 521-535.
Smith, S. (2010).How localpmpertytaxesdiscoumgedensity. Market
urbanism-Urbanism for capitalistslcapitalism for urbanists Re-
trieved fram http://marketwbanism.cod2010/11/30/how-local-
property-taxes-discomageasiryl.
Song. Y.. & Knaap. G.-J. (2003). New urbanism and housing values: A
disaggregate assessment. Journal of Urban Economics, 54(2).
218-238.
Song, Y.. & Knaap. G.-J.(2004). Meas~uingthe effects of mixed land
useson housing values. RcgionalScienceand UrhEcommics. 34,
66340.
Souche. S. (2010). Measuring the shuchwl determinants of urban
travel demand. Tmnspon Policy. 19, 127-134.
Spillar, R (1989). The eBc& ofpopulazwn&wiry, income, and rmnsit
coverage on percapita rmnsit ridership in western Amenam cities.
Unpublished master's thesis. University of Washington. Seattle. WA.
Stead, D. (2001). Relationship between land use. socioeconomic
factors and trawl patterns in Britain. Emrimmenrand Planning B,
28(4), 499-528.
Steemers, K. (2003). Energy and the city: Density, buildings and
transport. Energy and Buildings, 35,3-14.
Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding:
Some implications for future rtsurcb Psycblogical &view 79,
275-277.
Stokols, D. (1976). Thc experience of crowding in prinwy and
secondary environments. Environment and Behavio~8.49-86.
Stokols, D. (1987). Conceptual strategies of environmental psycholo-
gy. In D.Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental
pycblogy (pp. 41-70). New York: W i ley & Sons.
Stokols, D., FM, M., Pinner, B., & Schopler, J. (1973). Physical,
social and personal determinants of the perception of crowding.
Environment and Behavioc 4. 87-1 15.
Stone, B.. Meclnick, A. C., Holloway. T., & Spak, S. N. (2007).Is
compact growth good for air quality? Journal of the American
P h i n g Association. 73(4), 404-418.
Swtton, H. (19%). Density, efficiency and equality in Ausmdian cities.
In M. Jenks. E. B m n , & K. Williams W.),Thc compacr city;A
susrainable urbanform? @p. 4542). London: E & FN Spon.
Sundstrom. E. (1975). An experimental study of crowding: Effects of
room size, intrusion, and goal blocking on nonverbal behavior.
self-disclos~and self-reported sires. J o d of PErsonali@
and Social Psychology, 32.645654.
Sundstrwn. E. (1978). Crowding as a sequential process: Review of
research on theeffectFof population density on humans. In A. Baum
& Y. E$skin W.) H,u m response to ctvwding (pp. 31-1 16).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbum
Tarnopolsky. A.. & Clark. C. (1984). Environmental noise and mental
health. In H. L. Fremun (Ed.). Menral healthand the environment.
London: Churchill Livinstone.
Taylor. R. B. (1981). Perceptions of density: Individual diffwmccs?
Envimnment and Behaviol; 13(1), 3-21.
The Rince's Foundation.(m)- h a t i o n : Puning denrig in the right
place. New buildings in old places Retrieved from httpyi
www.foundation~building~~~ation.
Tratalm, J., Fuller. R. A.. W a n . P. H.. Davies, R.G.,& Gaston. K. 1.
(2007). Urban form, biodivenity potential andecosynem services.
Land.~copeand Urhnn Planning. 83. 308-317.
llrhnn Task Force. (1999). T n ~ a n l vnn urhnn rennis.vonr~.Inndnn:
HMSO.
Urban Task Force. (2005). Towords o srmng urban renaissance.
London: HMSO.
Valins. S., & Baum. A. (1973). Residential group sile, social interac-
tion and crowding. Envimnmenr and B~hnviou,:5.421439.
Van Acker, V., & Witlox. F. (2010). Car ownership as a mediating
variable i n car travel behaviour research using a structural equa-
tion modelling approach to identify its dual relationship. Journal
of T m w l Geogrnphy, 18.65-74.
Van Everdingen. Y., Fok. D..& Stremench. S. (2W9). Modeling
global spillover o f new pmduct takeoff. Journal of Morkcring
Rerearcls 46(5). 637-652.
Verbrugge, L. M,. & Taylor. R. B. (1976). Constqutncrrofpopularion
denrir.~: Tcsring new h.vpothrsis (occasional paper). Baltimore.
MD: Center for Metropolitan Planning and Research, John Hop-
kins University.
Verbrugge, L. M,. & Taylor. R. B. (1980). Consequencesofpopulation
density and size. Urban Affairs Revinv. 16(2). 135-160.
Vilhelmmn. B. (1990). Wirdnglipa eiirligher: Om rerande.vr~rverkling.
fiinlelninfi mb griinrer [Our daily ,nohillr)r: on the developmenr,
disrrihurion and lin!ilr of rmvellin~/(TFR wpon). Stockholm,
Sweden: The Swedish Tranarron Buard.
Wachs. T. D.. & Gruen. G. (1982). E1lr1.y erppri~nceand humon
d~uclnnmmr.New York: Plenum.
Waldcn. T. A., Nelson. P. A., & Smith. D. E. (1981). Crowding,
privacy and coping. En~~irunme-nr and Behovior: 13(2). 205-224.
Walton. D..Mumay. S. 1.. & Thomas. J. A. (2W8). Relationships
herween pnpulatinn density and rhe perceived quality of neigh-
b o u r h d . S11cio1Indicolors Research. 89(3). 405-420.
Wanyeki. I.. Olmn. S.. Brassacd. E. Menzies. D.. Rosr. N.. Behr. M,.
et al. (2006). Dwellings. crowding, and tuberculosis i n Montreal.
Sociol Science & M~rlicine.63(2). 501-51 1.
Webber. C., & Athey. G. (2007). The mm? rogmwrh: Imnspon, densip
andpmductivily (briefing paper no. 4). London: Centre for Cities.
Weiser. M.. van 01. 1. Reichenberg. A., Rahinowiw. I.. Nahon. D.,
Kravite. E., et al. (2007). Social and co#nitive functioning,
urbanicity and risk for schizophrenia. Rririrh Journal of P.~ychin-
tn: 191.32C-324.
Wener, R., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Improving environment informa-
lion: Effects o f signs on perceived crowding and hehavior. Envi-
mnment and Bthonior: 15. 3-20.
Whceln: C. H. (2004). Wage inequality and urban density. lournolof
Y , 421437.
Economic ~ < o ~ m p / I .4,
Whitehead. C. (2008). The denrip deban: A perronal view. London:
East Thamer Housing Group.
Wicker, A. W. (1973). Undermanning theory and refiearch: Implica-
tions for the study o f psychological and behavioral cffccts o f
excess populations. R~pprrsrnr<trivuRrsrmrh in Sc,ciul Psychulo-
gy. 4, 185-206.
Williams. K. (2WO). Does intensifying cities make them more sus-
tainable? In K. Williams. E. Burton. & M. Jenks(Eds.).Achieving
susrai,table urban fornz (pp. 30-45). London: E & FN Spon.
Williams. K. (20091. Space per person i n the UK: A review o f
densities. trends. expeliencer and optimum levels. l m d Urr
Policv. 26s. S 8 M 9 2 .
Williams, K., Bunon, E., & Jenks, M. (Eds.). (2000). Achkving
susrainable urban fornt. London: E & IT4 Spon.
Williams, K., Jaynt, I. L. R., & Hopkins, D. (2010). Adapting to
climate change i n the compact city: The suburban challenge. Builr
Envimnment. 36(1). 105-1 15.
Willis. K. G.. Turner, R. K., & Bateman, I.(2001). Urbon planning
and manozemmr. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Willis. A.. Gjersoe. N.. Havard, C.. Kerridge. 1.. & Kukla, R. (2004).
Human movement behaviour i n urban space: lmplicntions for the
design and modelling o f effective pedestrian environments.
Enrimnmenl and Plnnning B: Plonnin~and Dcrign. 31. 805-
828.
Wilson, G..& Baldawre. M. (1996). Overall 'senseof community' i n
a suburban neion:
. The effects o f localism, privacy
. . and urbania-
lion. Envimnnrvnr ond Brhrrvios 28(I), 27-43.
Wirth. L. (1938). Urbanism as a way o f life. Americon Jaurnol of
Sociology. 44. 1-24.
Wmd, R. C., & Pullin, A. S. (2002). Persistence o f species i n a
fragmented urban landscape: The importance of dispersal ability
and hehitnt availability for grassland butterflies. Biodivmily and
Cortsenarion. 11. 145 1-1468.
W d w a r d . F. I..& Kelly. C. K. (1995). The influence o f CO2
concentration an stomata1 density. New. Ph~rologisr. 131(3).
31 1-327.
Worchel. S., &Teddlie. C. (1976). Factors affecting the experienceof
crowding: A two-factor theory. Journal of PersonaliN and Social
P.~chology.34, 30-40.
X". F.. Li. 1. Liang. Y.,Wang.Z., Honp. X.. Ware, R. S.,et al. (2010).
Associations o f residential density with a d o l e m t s ' physical
activity in a rapidly urbanizing area o f mainland China. Journal
of Urhan Henlrh. 87(1). 44-53.

Christopher Boyko is asenior research associate in Imaginationlancaster at Lancaster University. With Prof. Cooper,
he is currently examining density and the decision-making process as part of a larger project about urban futures. This
research builds on previous research about urban design decision-making processes and sustainability. Christopher is
also a principle investigator on a project that is exploring people's use of digital technology in public spaces. In
between these projects, Christopher co-wrote a UK government report about the impacts of the physical environment
on mental wellbeing. His general research interests include sustainability, urban design, public space, environmental
psychology and wellbeing.

Rachel Cooper is a professor of Design Management and co-director of ImaginationLancasterat Lancaster University
as well as a chair of the lancaster Institute for the Contempnrary Arts. She has authored several hooks in the design
field, including The Design Agenda (1995). The Design Experience (2003) and Designing Sustainable Cities (2009).
She is the editor of The Design Journal and the president of the European Academy of Design. Rachel's research
interests cover design management, design policy, design in the huilt envimnment and design against crime.