Advances in the Leading Paradigms of Urbanism and their Amalgamation: Compact Cities, Eco–Cities, and Data–Driven Smart Cities [1st ed.] 9783030417451, 9783030417468

Citation preview

Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation IEREK Interdisciplinary Series for Sustainable Development

Simon Elias Bibri

Advances in the Leading Paradigms of Urbanism and their Amalgamation Compact Cities, Eco–Cities, and Data–Driven Smart Cities

Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation IEREK Interdisciplinary Series for Sustainable Development

Editorial Board Anna Laura Pisello, Department of Engineering, University of Perugia, Italy Dean Hawkes, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Hocine Bougdah, University for the Creative Arts, Farnham, UK Federica Rosso, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Hassan Abdalla, University of East London, London, UK Sofia-Natalia Boemi, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Nabil Mohareb, Faculty of Architecture - Design and Built Environment, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon Saleh Mesbah Elkaffas, Arab Academy for Science, Technology, Egypt Emmanuel Bozonnet, University of la Rochelle, La Rochelle, France Gloria Pignatta, University of Perugia, Italy Yasser Mahgoub, Qatar University, Qatar Luciano De Bonis, University of Molise, Italy Stella Kostopoulou, Regional and Tourism Development, University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Biswajeet Pradhan, Faculty of Engineering and IT, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia Md. Abdul Mannan, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia Chaham Alalouch, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman Iman O. Gawad, Helwan University, Egypt Anand Nayyar, Graduate School, Duy Tan University, Da Nang, Vietnam Series Editor Mourad Amer, International Experts for Research Enrichment and Knowledge Exchange (IEREK), Cairo, Egypt

Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation (ASTI) is a series of peer-reviewed books based on the best studies on emerging research that redefines existing disciplinary boundaries in science, technology and innovation (STI) in order to develop integrated concepts for sustainable development. The series is mainly based on the best research papers from various IEREK and other international conferences, and is intended to promote the creation and development of viable solutions for a sustainable future and a positive societal transformation with the help of integrated and innovative science-based approaches. Offering interdisciplinary coverage, the series presents innovative approaches and highlights how they can best support both the economic and sustainable development for the welfare of all societies. In particular, the series includes conceptual and empirical contributions from different interrelated fields of science, technology and innovation that focus on providing practical solutions to ensure food, water and energy security. It also presents new case studies offering concrete examples of how to resolve sustainable urbanization and environmental issues. The series is addressed to professionals in research and teaching, consultancies and industry, and government and international organizations. Published in collaboration with IEREK, the ASTI series will acquaint readers with essential new studies in STI for sustainable development.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15883

Simon Elias Bibri

Advances in the Leading Paradigms of Urbanism and their Amalgamation Compact Cities, Eco–Cities, and Data–Driven Smart Cities

123

Simon Elias Bibri Department of Computer Science Department of Architecture and Planning Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim, Norway

ISSN 2522-8714 ISSN 2522-8722 (electronic) Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation IEREK Interdisciplinary Series for Sustainable Development ISBN 978-3-030-41745-1 ISBN 978-3-030-41746-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41746-8 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Image credtit: © Iakov Kalinin/Adobe Stock This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This timely book is concerned with the recent advances in the leading paradigms of urbanism, namely compact cities, eco-cities, and data-driven smart cities, and the evolving approach to their amalgamation under the umbrella term of smart sustainable cities of the future. Sustainable urban development is today seen as one of the keys toward unlocking the quest for a sustainable world. And the big data revolution is set to erupt in cities throughout the world, heralding an era where instrumentation, datafication, and computation are increasingly pervading the very fabric of cities and the spaces we live in thanks to the IoT. Big data and the IoT technologies are seen as powerful forces that have tremendous potential for advancing urban sustainability. Indeed, they are instigating a massive change in the way sustainable cities can tackle the kind of special conundrums, wicked problems, and significant challenges they inherently embody as complex systems. They offer a multitudinous array of innovative solutions and sophisticated approaches informed by groundbreaking research and data–driven science. This book will elicit new insights and offer new perspectives to spark novel ways of inquiry within the domain of sustainable urbanism. The primary aim in this regard is to bring scholars and practitioners closer together from different disciplines and professional fields, or those already working on cross connections of urban sustainability, sustainability science, complexity science, urban science, data science, and computer science, to develop, concretize, and disseminate new ideas for advancing sustainable urbanism and promoting related strategies, approaches, programs, and initiatives based on sophisticated technologies and their innovative solutions. Indeed, this book is based on a uniquely holistic perspective, adopting a compelling approach to cross-disciplinary integration and fusion between diverse academic and scientific disciplines. This seminal work provides the necessary material to inform the research communities concerned with the recent advances in sustainable urbanism with the state-of-the-art research and the latest development in this area. It also provides a valuable reference for practitioners who are seeking to contribute to, or already working with, the development and implementation of smart sustainable cities as a leading paradigm of urbanism based on big data analytics and the IoT. In this respect, the upshot of this book enables researchers to focus their work on the extreme fragmentation of and weak connection between sustainable cities and smart cities as landscapes and approaches, respectively, in terms of embracing what emerging and future ICT has to offer to advance sustainability. Practitioners can use the outcome of this book to identify common weaknesses, flaws, and difficulties within sustainable urbanism and then deal with them through devising and implementing alternative solutions on the basis of what big data analytics and the IoT have to offer as novel applications and sophisticated approaches. These pertain to new ways of optimizing and enhancing urban operational functioning, planning, design, development, and governance in response to the challenges of sustainable development. While this book can best be seen as being aimed at those with a background in both sustainable urbanism and smart/data-driven urbanism, it is primarily from a sustainable urbanism angle. That is to say, it would be more appropriate for giving sustainable urbanists a vantage on smart/data-driven urbanism than giving urban scientists a vantage on sustainable v

vi

urbanism. Nonetheless, it contains value-laden knowledge and technology of high relevance to urban scientists. I consider that this book represents a basis for further discussions to debate the point that big data analytics and the IoT have disruptive, substantive, and synergetic effects, particularly on forms of sustainable urban planning and development. In the meantime, this book seeks to encourage in-depth research, thorough qualitative analyses and empirical investigations, focused on establishing, substantiating, and/or challenging the assumptions and claims made by the advocates of big data analytics and the IoT as to advancing sustainability. This book offers a novel, fresh, all-embracing approach to sustainable urbanism. In doing so, it combines scientific, academic, and practical relevance with cross-domain analyses in regard to the tripartite composition of sustainable development—environmental, economic, and social sustainability, supported with critical and reflective thinking. Advances in the Leading Paradigms of Urbanism and their Amalgamation is intended for several classes of readers, including students, researchers, academics, urban scientists, social scientists, futurists, technologists, ICT experts, urbanists, planners, engineers, architectural designers, built and natural environment specialists, and policy analysts and policymakers, whether they are new to or already involved in sustainable urbanism as a field for research and practice. It is also intended for all of those interested in an overview covering a range of topics on the prevailing models of sustainable urbanism and their recent data-driven smart incarnation, including the evolving approach to their amalgamation. Specifically, this book can be read on two different levels. In other words, it has been written with two kinds of readers in mind. The first group of readers will be represented by students, scholars, and professionals. I am writing to students taking graduate and postgraduate courses or pursuing Master’s and Ph.D. programs in the areas of sustainable cities, smart cities, smart sustainable cities, sustainable urban planning, sustainable development, urban science, urban informatics, urban computing, and so forth. Those readers already familiar with sustainable cities and smart cities and their relationship in the context of sustainability and with the growing role of big data analytics and the IoT in improving their contribution to the goals of sustainable development will certainly get much more out of this book and find much more that appeals to them in it than those lacking that grounding. Nevertheless, those readers with limited knowledge in this particular area are provided and supported with a detailed explanation and discussion of the relevant conceptual, theoretical, disciplinary, and practical foundations with reference to sustainable urbanism as an interdisciplinary field. This is meant to appease the uninitiated readers. The second group of readers will be presented by intellectuals and people with a limited, if any, scientific background. Throughout, the book has been written with this audience in mind. At times, the content presented might seem overwhelming, and I hope that you won’t be easily discouraged. Even if the scientific content of a given chapter is difficult to understand, the citations from original documents, conclusions drawn, and recommendations made can be easily comprehended. I believe that this book will be a very useful resource for all of those involved or with interest in sustainable smart urbanism that are looking for an accessible reference. Overall, people in many disciplines and professional fields will find the coverage of the scientific shifts and practical advancements related to this field to be of great value and usefulness. My hope is that this book will be of interest to people of other countries than the ecologically advanced nations, which are the focus of the empirical investigation in this work. I believe that I have achieved an important goal with this book—by creating a valuable, strategic resource for the different communities in the field of sustainable urbanism. Especially, there is a need for a comprehensive book on sustainable urbanism given that this field is remarkably heterogeneous, with a large number and wide variety of unaddressed and unsettled questions in research and with a host of unexplored opportunities toward new approaches in light of the recent advances in planning and development practices as well as in technology and its application.

Preface

Preface

vii

Finally, I will be pleased if this book contributes to a better understanding of sustainable urbanism, and, more importantly, stimulates the development and implementation of new faces of smart sustainable cities and thereby mitigates or overcomes the extreme fragmentation of and the weak connection between sustainable cities and smart cities as landscapes and approaches, respectively. It is my anticipation that the practical and conceptual advances presented here will stimulate diverse future research and inform policy recommendations on integrating compact, ecological, and data-driven approaches for societal transitions. All in all, I hope that this book will be enlightening, thought-provoking, and making good reading for the target audiences. And ultimately, the first edition will be well received and widely read. Lund, Sweden May 2019

Simon Elias Bibri

Contents

1

2

Introduction: Sustainable Urbanism and the Potential of its Synergic Integration with Data-Driven Smart Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Research Topic: A Broad Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Aim and Purpose of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 The Structure and Content of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 The Organization and Design of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality in Sustainable Urbanism in the Era of Big Data Revolution: A Comprehensive State-of-the-Art Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Literature Review Methodology: A Topical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Hierarchical Search Strategy and Scholarly Sources . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Selection Criteria: Inclusion and Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Combining Three Organizational Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Conceptual, Theoretical, and Discursive Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 The Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Sustainable Urban Planning, Design, and Development . . . . . . 2.3.3 Sustainable Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Sustainable Urban Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 Smart Sustainable Urbanism: A Data-Driven Approach . . . . . . 2.4 A Thorough Analysis, Evaluation, and Discussion of the Compact City Paradigm of Sustainable Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 The Compact City Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 The Compact City Ideal: Benefits and Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Compact City Design Strategies and Their Link to the Sustainable Development Goals: An Empirical Basis . . . . . . . . 2.4.4 The Compact City Paradox: Conflicting and Contentious Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.5 Compact City Planning and Development Problems, Issues, and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.6 Towards Data-Driven Smart Sustainable Urban Forms . . . . . . . 2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1 1 2 4 4 5 6

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 9 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 15

.. .. ..

16 16 19

..

20

..

23

. . . .

24 28 33 35

. . . .

ix

x

3

4

Contents

Advances in Compact City Planning and Development: Emerging Practices and Strategies for Balancing the Goals of Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Sustainable Cities and Related Approaches—Compact Cities . . 3.2.2 Compact City Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Issues, Policies, and Research Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Sustainability Benefits of the Compact City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 The Compact City Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Theoretical Framework: Discourse, Discursive and Social Practices, and Institutionalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Case Study Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Case Study Design Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Descriptive Case Study Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4 Descriptive Case Study as a Basis of Backcasting . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5 Describing a Case on the Basis of Theoretical Frameworks . . . 3.4.6 Selection Criteria, Unit of Analysis, and Data Collection and Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.7 Brief on Gothenburg and Helsingborg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Results: Compact City Strategies and Their Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 The Core Compact City Principles and Strategies and Their Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability Benefits . . 3.5.2 Summary of the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Eco–city Paradigm of Sustainable Urbanism in the Era of Big Data Revolution: A Comprehensive State–of–the–Art Literature Review . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Literature Review Methodology: A Topical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Hierarchical Search Strategy and Scholarly Sources . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Selection Criteria: Inclusion and Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Combining Three Organizational Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Conceptual, Theoretical, Discursive, and Practical Dimensions of the Prevalent Approaches to Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Sustainable Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Ecological Urbanism and its Relation to Green Urbanism, Compact Urbanism, and Sustainable Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Smart Sustainable Urbanism: A Data-Driven Approach . . . . . 4.4 The Eco-city as a Central Paradigm of Sustainable Urbanism . . . . . . . 4.4.1 The Eco–City Concept and its Definitional Issues . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Models and Design Principles and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Ideals, Benefits, and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Deficiencies, Challenges, Uncertainties, and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Towards Data–driven Smart Sustainable/Ecological Urbanism . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

41 41 42 42 43 44 44 45

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

46 48 48 49 49 49 50

.. ..

50 51

..

52

. . . . .

. . . . .

52 60 61 63 66

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

71 71 72 73 73 74 74

... ...

74 74

. . . . . . . .

77 79 80 80 81 82 85 88

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

Contents

xi

4.6.1 4.6.2

A Conceptual Framework for Urban Intelligence Functions . New Frameworks for Amalgamating Sustainable/Ecological Cities with Smart Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Discussion of STS Linkages and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

6

....

88

. . . .

. . . .

Advances in Eco-city Planning and Development: Emerging Practices and Strategies for Integrating the Goals of Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Sustainable Cities and Related Approaches—Eco-cities . . . . . . 5.2.2 Eco-city Models, Design Principles and Strategies, and Research Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Eco-city Ideals and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Eco-city Problems, Issues, and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Theoretical Framework: Discourse, Discursive and Social Practices, and Institutionalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Case Study Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Case Study Design Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Descriptive Case Study Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 Descriptive Case Study as a Basis of Backcasting . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.5 Describing a Case on the Basis of Theoretical Frameworks . . . 5.4.6 Selection Criteria, Unit of Analysis, and Data Collection and Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.7 Brief on the Case Study Cities and Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Short on the Compact and Ecological Urbanism in Stockholm and Malmö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 The Core Eco-city Strategies and Solutions for Achieving Urban Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data-Driven Smart Sustainable Cities: A Conceptual Framework for Urban Intelligence Functions and Related Processes, Systems, and Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Theoretical and Disciplinary Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Data-Driven Smart Sustainable Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Complexity Science and Complex Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Modeling and Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Big Data Science and Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.5 Urban Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 A Survey of Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Thematic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 The Relevance of Urban Science and Data-Intensive Science Urban Sustainability Science and Related Wicked Problems . 6.5.2 Instrumentation, Datafication, and Data-Driven Urbanism . . . 6.5.3 Big Data Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

89 95 96 98

. . . .

. . . .

103 103 104 104

. . 105 . . 105 . . 106 . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

107 109 109 109 109 110 110

. . 111 . . 113 . . 114 . . 114 . . . .

. . . .

115 131 135 138

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

143 143 144 144 145 145 146 147 147 150 151

to . . . . 151 . . . . 153 . . . . 155

xii

Contents

6.5.4 6.5.5

Advances in Smart Sustainable Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Conceptual Framework for Urban Intelligence Functions and Related Processes, Systems, and Sciences . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

8

. . . . . 160 . . . . . 169 . . . . . 169 . . . . . 171

Data-Driven Smart Sustainable Urbanism and Data-Intensive Urban Sustainability Science: New Approaches to Tackling Urban Complexities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Theoretical and Disciplinary Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Sustainable Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Big Data Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 Data-Intensive Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.4 Wicked Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Wicked Problems as Inherent in Sustainable Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 The Essential Character of Wicked Problems in Urban Planning and Related Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 New Opportunities for Big Data Uses in Smart Sustainable Urbanism . . 7.6 Integrating Urban Sustainability and Sustainability Science and the Role of Urban Science and Data-Intensive Science in Transforming Urban Sustainability Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The IoT and Big Data Analytics for Smart Sustainable Cities: Enabling Technologies and Practical Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Conceptual and Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Smart Sustainable Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 The IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.3 Big Data Analytics: Features, Technologies, and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.4 Taxonomy for Big Data Analytics Components for the IoT . . . 8.2.5 Urban Sustainability and Sustainable Urban Development . . . . 8.3 Thematic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1 The Link Between the IoT, Big Data, and Sensor Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.2 The Core Enabling Technologies of the IoT and Big Data Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.3 Big Data Processing and Analytics Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.4 Mastering the Complexity of Big Data Processing and Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.5 Big Data Ecosystem and Its Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.6 Cloud Computing for Big Data Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.7 Fog and Edge Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.8 The IoT Infrastructures for Smart Cities and Smart Sustainable Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.9 Sustainable Cities—Compact Cities and Eco-cities as Models of Sustainable Urban Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.10 The IoT-Enabled Big Data Applications for Smart Sustainable Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

175 175 176 176 176 177 177 177

. . 179 . . 180

. . 184 . . 188 . . 189

. . . . .

. . . . .

191 191 192 192 194

. . . . .

. . . . .

195 197 197 198 199

. . 199 . . 200 . . 203 . . . .

. . . .

205 206 207 209

. . 211 . . 213 . . 215

Contents

xiii

8.5

A Framework for Integrating Smart Cities and Sustainable Cities Based on the IoT and Big Data Technologies and Their Applications . . . . . . . 8.5.1 A Model of Smart Sustainable Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.2 On the Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 The Case Study of Stockholm City and Royal Seaport District . . . . . . . 8.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

The Leading Data-Driven Smart Cities in Europe: Their Applied Solutions and Best Practices for Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Conceptual and Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.1 Datafication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.2 The Data-Driven City as an Emerging Paradigm of Smart Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.3 A Data-Driven Approach to Sustainable Smart Urbanism . . . . . 9.2.4 The IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Case Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.1 Case study as an Integral Part of a Backcasting-based Futures Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.2 Case Study Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.3 Case Study Design Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.4 Descriptive Case Study Relevance and Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.5 Descriptive Case Study as a Basis of Backcasting . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.6 Selection Criteria, Unit of Analysis, and Data Collection and Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.1 On the Ranking of London and Barcelona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.2 Data-driven Technologies and their Applications for City Systems and Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.3 Data-Oriented Competences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.4 Infrastructure and Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 A Practical Integration of the Leading Paradigms of Urbanism: A Novel Model for Data-Driven Smart Sustainable Cities of the Future . 10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Background of the Futures Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Conceptual and Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.1 Sustainable Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.2 The Emerging Paradigm of Data-Driven Smart Urbanism . . . 10.4 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.1 Appropriateness and Integration of Backcasting and Case Study Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.2 Case Study Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.3 Backcasting Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 The Underlying Components of the Proposed Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.1 Urban Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.2 Technological Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

220 220 221 221 223 223

. . . .

. . . .

227 227 229 229

. . . . .

. . . . .

229 229 230 231 231

. . . . .

. . . . .

231 232 232 232 233

. . 233 . . 234 . . 234 . . . . . .

. . . . . .

236 243 249 252 255 256

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

259 259 261 263 263 264 266

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

266 268 268 271 271 272

xiv

Contents

10.6 Relevant Approaches to Urban Planning and Spatial Scales . . 10.6.1 Strategic Planning Approaches and Their Outcomes . 10.6.2 Urban Complexities and the Useful Uses of Big Data Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6.3 Joined-up and Short-Term Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6.4 Spatial Scale Outcomes of Processes: A Multi-scalar Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6.5 Spatial Scale Amalgamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 A Framework for Strategic Sustainable Urban Planning and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . 275 . . . . . . . . . 276 . . . . . . . . . 278 . . . . . . . . . 279 . . . . . . . . . 280 . . . . . . . . . 282 . . . . . . . . . 285 . . . . . . . . . 285 . . . . . . . . . 287

About the Author

Dr. Simon Elias Bibri is Assistant Professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Department of Computer Science and Department of Architecture and Planning, Trondheim, Norway. His intellectual pursuits and endeavors have resulted in an educational background encompassing knowledge from, and meta-knowledge about, different academic disciplines. He holds the following degrees: 1. Bachelor of Science in computer engineering with a major in software development and computer networks 2. Master of Science—research focused—in computer science with a major in Ambient Intelligence 3. Master of Science in computer science with a major in informatics 4. Master of Science in computer and systems sciences with a major in decision support and risk analysis 5. Master of Science in entrepreneurship and innovation with a major in new venture creation 6. Master of Science in strategic leadership toward sustainability 7. Master of Science in sustainable urban development 8. Master of Science in environmental science with a major in ecotechnology and sustainable development 9. Master of Social Science with a major in business administration (MBA) 10. Master of Arts in communication and media for social change 11. Master of Science with a major in economics and management 12. Ph.D. in computer science and urban planning with a focus on data-driven smart sustainable cities of the future. Bibri has earned all his Master’s degrees from different Swedish universities, namely Lund University, West University, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Malmö University, Stockholm University, and Mid-Sweden University. Before embarking on his long academic journey, Bibri had served as a sustainability and ICT strategist, business IT engineer, project manager, researcher, and consultant. Over the past years and in parallel with his academic studies, he has been involved in a number of research and consulting projects pertaining to smart sustainable cities, smart cities, sustainable cities, green innovation, sustainable business model innovation, and green ICT strategies. Bibri’s current research interests include sustainable smart urbanism, sustainable urbanism, data-driven smart urbanism, scientific urbanism, complexity science, urban science, and data-intensive science, as well as big data computing and its core enabling and driving technologies, namely sensor infrastructures, data processing platforms, cloud and fog computing models, and communication networks. Bibri has a genuine interest in the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. His general research interests fall within the following areas:

xv

xvi

• • • • • • • • • •

About the Author

ICT of ubiquitous computing (i.e., Ambient Intelligence, the IoT, and Sentient Computing) Big data science and analytics Sustainable cities (e.g., compact city, eco-city, green city, environmental city, symbiocity) Smart cities (e.g., real-time city, data-driven city, ambient city, ubiquitous city, sentient city) Sustainability transitions and socio-technical shifts Philosophy of science and scientific and epistemological paradigm shifts Science, technology, and society (STS) Technological innovation systems Industrial ecology (e.g., industrial symbiosis, eco-industrial parks) Environmental and technology policies. Bibri has authored five academic books whose titles are as follows:

1. The Human Face of Ambient Intelligence: Cognitive, Emotional, Affective, Behavioral and Conversational Aspects, Springer, 07/2015 2. The Shaping of Ambient Intelligence and the Internet of Things: Historico–epistemic, Socio-cultural, Politico-institutional and Eco-environmental Dimensions, 11/2015 3. Smart Sustainable Cities of the Future: The Untapped Potential of Big Data Analytics and Context-Aware Computing for Advancing Sustainability, Springer, 03/2018 4. Big Data Science and Analytics for Smart Sustainable Urbanism: Unprecedented Paradigmatic Shifts and Practical Advancements, Springer, 05/2019 5. Advances in the Leading Paradigms of Urbanism and their Amalgamation: Compact Cities, Eco-cities, and Data-Driven Smart Cities, Springer, 05/2020.

1

Introduction: Sustainable Urbanism and the Potential of its Synergic Integration with Data-Driven Smart Urbanism

1.1

Research Topic: A Broad Perspective

Sustainable development has, since its widespread diffusion in the early 1990s, significantly positively influenced urban planning and development. As a result of reviving the discussion about the built form of cities and giving a major stimulus to the question of the contribution that certain urban forms might make to sustainability, sustainable development has undoubtedly inspired a whole generation of urban scholars and practitioners into a quest for the immense opportunities and fascinating possibilities that could be explored by, and the enormous benefits that could be realized from, the planning and development of sustainable urban forms. That is to say, forms for human settlements that will meet the requirements of sustainability and enable the built environment to function in ways that enhance and optimize urban systems and services in line with the goals of sustainable development in terms of reducing material use, lowering energy consumption, mitigating pollution, and minimizing waste, as well as improving social equity and well-being (Bibri and Krogstie 2019a, b). Sustainable cities have been the leading global paradigm of urbanism for more than three decades thanks to the models of sustainable urban form proposed as new frameworks for restructuring and redesigning urban places to make living more sustainable. Indeed, significant advances in some areas of knowledge about sustainability and a multitude of exemplary practical initiatives have been realized, thereby raising the profile of sustainable cities worldwide. The subject of “sustainable cities” remains endlessly fascinating and enticing, as there are numerous actors involved in the academic and practical aspects of the endeavor, including planners and architects, green technologists, built and natural environment specialists, environmental and social scientists, and, more recently, ICT experts and urban scientists. All these actors are undertaking research and developing strategies to tackle the challenging elements of sustainable urbanism. In addition to this is the work of policymakers and political decision-makers in terms

of formulating and implementing regulatory policies and devising and applying political mechanisms and governance arrangements to promote and spur innovation and monitor and maintain progress in sustainable cities. A number of recent United Nations reports and policy papers argue that the compact city and the eco-city as models of sustainable urban form have positive effects on resource efficiency, climate change, economic development, social integration and cohesion, citizen health and quality of life, and cultural dynamics. These two models are the most prevailing approaches to sustainable urbanism and thus promoted by global and local policies as the preferred responses to the challenges of sustainable development. It is argued that the compact city strategies are able to achieve all of the benefits of sustainability, thereby providing an all-encompassing concept for urban planning practices, and that the eco-city strategies are able to deliver positive outcomes in terms of providing healthy and livable human environments in conjunction with minimal demand on resources and thus minimal environmental impacts. The change is still inspiring and the challenge continues to induce scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to enhance the predominant models of sustainable urban form, or to propose new integrated ones in response to global shifts. Especially, sustainable cities have been problematic, whether in theory or practice (Bibri 2019a, 2020, Bibri et al. 2020), so is yet knowing to what extent we are making progress toward urban sustainability. In other words, despite the benefits claimed by the advocates of the compact city and eco-city models, their critics highlight a number of conflicting and contentious issues, coupled with a number of problems, issues, and challenges. Hence, much more needs to be done considering the very fragmented picture that arises of change on the ground in the face of the expanding urbanization. In this context, it has been suggested that sustainable cities need to embrace and leverage what advanced ICT has to offer so as to improve, advance, and maintain their contribution to sustainability. In a nutshell, new circumstances require new responses.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. E. Bibri, Advances in the Leading Paradigms of Urbanism and their Amalgamation, Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41746-8_1

1

2

1

Introduction: Sustainable Urbanism and the Potential of its Synergic Integration …

The spread of urbanization and the rise of ICT are important global shifts at play across the world today. They are drastically changing our understanding of sustainability in cities. The transformative force of urbanization and ICT, coupled with the central role that cities can play in achieving the goals of sustainable development, has far-reaching implications for societies. By all indicators, the urban world will become largely technologized and computerized within just a few decades, and ICT as an enabling, integrative, and constitutive technology of the twenty-first century will accordingly be instrumental, if not determining, in addressing many of the conundrums posed, the issues raised, and the challenges presented by urbanization. It is therefore of strategic value to start directing the use of emerging ICT into understanding and proactively mitigating the potential effects of urbanization, with the primary aim of tackling the many wicked problems involved in urban planning, development, management, and governance, notably in the context of sustainability. This is another macro–shift at play across the world today. In the current climate of the unprecedented urbanization and increased uncertainty of the world, it may be more challenging for cities in developed countries to configure themselves more sustainably. The predicted 70% rate of urbanization by 2050 reveals that the sustainability of urban environments will be a key factor in the global resilience to forthcoming changes. This implies that the city governments will face significant challenges pertaining to environmental, economic, and social sustainability due to the issues engendered by urban growth. These include increased energy consumption, pollution, toxic waste disposal, resource depletion, inefficient management of urban infrastructures and facilities, inadequate planning processes and decision-making systems, poor housing and working conditions, saturated transport networks, endemic congestion, and social inequality and vulnerability. In a nutshell, urban growth raises a variety of problems that tend to jeopardize the sustainability of cities, as it puts an enormous strain on urban systems and processes as well as ecosystem services. In other words, the multidimensional effects of unsustainability in modern cities are most likely to exacerbate with urbanization.

1.2

Background

There is an increasing recognition that advanced ICT constitutes a promising response to the challenges of sustainable development due to its tremendous, yet untapped, potential for solving many environmental and socio-economic problems. Therefore, ICT has come to the fore and become of crucial importance for containing the effects of urbanization and facing the challenges of sustainability, including the context of sustainable cities which are striving to enhance their contribution to the goals of sustainable development.

The use of advanced ICT in sustainable cities constitutes an effective approach to decoupling the health of the city and the quality of life of citizens from the energy and material consumption and concomitant environmental risks associated with urban operations, functions, services, as well as designs, strategies, and policies. Currently, sustainable cities are associated with a number of deficiencies, limitations, challenges, fallacies, and uncertainties when it comes to their planning, development, and governance in the context of sustainability (e.g., Bibri 2020, Bibri and Krogstie 2017a, b, 2019a, b; Kramers et al. 2016; Neuman 2005; Neuman and Jennings 2008; Rapoport and Vernay 2011; Williams 2010). This pertains mostly to the question of how sustainable urban forms should be monitored, understood, analyzed, and thus planned and designed in order to enhance their sustainability performance as to urban systems and services. The underlying argument is that more sophisticated approaches and innovative solutions are needed to overcome the kind of wicked problems and complex challenges pertaining to urban processes and practices in the context of sustainability. This brings us to the issue of sustainable cities and smart cities being extremely fragmented as landscapes and weakly connected as approaches to urbanism (e.g., Angelidou et al. 2017; Bibri 2019a; Bibri and Krogstie 2017a; Bifulco et al. 2016), despite the proven role of advanced ICT and the untapped potential of big data analytics for advancing sustainability under what is labeled “smart sustainable cities” (Bibri 2018a, b). In particular, tremendous opportunities are available for utilizing big data technologies and their novel applications in sustainable cities to improve, advance, and maintain their contribution to the goals of sustainable development. Big data technologies have become essential to the functioning of sustainable cities (Bibri 2019a, b) as well as smart cities (Kitchin 2014, 2016) in relation to sustainability (Batty et al. 2012; Bibri 2019c, Bibri and Krogstie 2020b). Consequently, urban processes and practices are becoming highly responsive to a form of data-driven urbanism. In more detail, we are moving into an era where instrumentation, datafication, and computation are routinely pervading the very fabric of cities, coupled with the integration and coordination of their systems and domains. And consequently, vast troves of data are generated, analyzed, harnessed, and exploited to control, manage, organize, and regulate urban life. This data-driven approach to urbanism is increasingly becoming the mode of production for smart sustainable cities. Smart cities are increasingly connecting the ICT infrastructure, the physical infrastructure, the social infrastructure, and the economic infrastructure to leverage their collective intelligence, thereby striving to render themselves more sustainable, efficient, functional, resilient, livable, and equitable. As such, they seek to solve a fundamental conundrum—ensure sustainable economic development,

1.2 Background

social equity, and enhanced quality of life at the same time as reducing costs and increasing resource efficiency and environment and infrastructure resilience. This is increasingly enabled by utilizing a fast-flowing torrent of urban data and the rapidly evolving big data technologies and thus algorithmic planning and governance, networked urban systems, and coordinated urban domains. In particular, the generation of colossal amounts of urban data and the development of sophisticated data analytics techniques for monitoring, understanding, analyzing, managing, regulating, and planning the city are the most significant aspects of smart cities that are being embraced and leveraged by sustainable cities in their endeavor to enhance their contribution to sustainability. For supra-national states, governments, and city officials, smart cities offer the enticing potential of environmental improvement and socio-economic development, and the renewal of urban centers as hubs of innovation and research (e.g., Batty et al. 2012; Bibri 2019b; Kitchin 2014; Kourtit et al. 2012; Townsend 2013). While there are several main characteristics of smart cities as evidenced by industry and government literature (e.g., Holland 2008), the one that this book is concerned with is environmental and social sustainability on the basis of big data analytics and its novel applications. In light of the above, there has recently been a conscious push for cities across the globe to be smarter and more sustainable by developing and implementing big data technologies and their novel applications in relation to various urban domains to enhance and optimize designs, strategies, policies, and hence operations, functions, and services. In this respect, a number of research endeavors have started to focus on smartening up sustainable cities by amalgamating the landscapes of and the approaches to sustainable cities and smart cities in a variety of ways in the hopes of reaching the required level of sustainability, focusing mainly on the “eco-city” and “sustainable city” initiatives in their more recent data-driven smart incarnations. Numerous research opportunities are available and can be realized in the ambit of data-driven smart sustainable cities. To put it differently, there is a host of unexplored horizons toward new approaches to urbanism in order to mitigate or overcome the extreme fragmentation of and the weak connection between sustainable cities and smart cities, in particular on the basis of big data computing and the underpinning technologies (Bibri 2019a). The underlying assumption is that the evolving big data deluge with its extensive sources hides in itself the answers to the most challenging analytical questions as well as the solutions to the most complex challenges pertaining to sustainability in the face of urbanization. It also plays a key role in understanding urban constituents as data agents. Many urban development approaches emphasize the role of big data technologies and their novel applications as an advanced form of ICT in improving sustainability

3

performance (e.g., Al Nuaimi et al. 2015; Batty et al. 2012; Bettencourt 2014; Bibri 2018b, 2019b; Bibri and Krogstie 2020a, b, Pantelis and Aija 2013; Shahrokni et al. 2015a, b). One of the salient driving factors for urbanism embracing the wave of integrating data-driven smartness with sustainability lies in the opportunities being created through the utilization of the innovative solutions and sophisticated approaches (i.e., intelligence and planning functions, simulation models, prediction and optimization methods, intelligent decision support systems, etc.). These are being enabled by big data technologies for data acquisition, storage, management, processing, and analysis that are applied for supporting the goals of sustainable development and thus advancing sustainability. This is manifested in the rapid evolvement of smart sustainable cities as a new approach to and a leading paradigm of urbanism into becoming more and more digitally instrumented, datafied, and computerized, thereby becoming data-analytically driven with respect to urban processes and practices in the context of sustainability and the integration of its dimensions. In several ecologically and technologically advanced countries, national urban projects are investing heavily in, and focusing on strengthening the role of, big data technologies and their novel applications in urban planning and development. This approach is understood as what sustainable cities are doing to improve their sustainability performance and how they do it, on the one hand, and what smart cities are doing to incorporate the goals of sustainable development and how they do it, on the other hand. Accordingly, the scholarly enterprise of big data computing and the role of its uses in facilitating the contribution of both sustainable cities and smart cities to sustainability is most likely to represent an important changing dynamic in the transition toward data-driven smart sustainable cities. This approach to urbanism entails harnessing ideas about how new technologies can be directed toward creating more effective ways of leveraging data and how new data-driven innovations can be facilitated and diffused throughout urban systems and domains for stimulating drastic transformations. One key facet in this regard is how to improve the three dimensions of sustainability by successfully translating it into the built, spatial, operational, functional, and serviceable forms of the city. In view of the above, the field of sustainable urbanism needs to extend its boundaries and broaden its horizons beyond the ambit of the built form and ecological design of the city to include technological innovation opportunities and computational capabilities by unlocking and exploiting the potential of advanced ICT. Besides, science and technology are well aligned with the project of envisioning alternative societal and urban futures, and entails a well-established dynamic interplay with societal progress and urban innovation. Specifically, visions of future

4

1

Introduction: Sustainable Urbanism and the Potential of its Synergic Integration …

advances in science and technology inevitably bring with them wide-ranging common visions on how societies, and thus cities as social organizations, will evolve in the future, as well as the opportunities and risks this future will bring (Bibri 2019d, Bibri and Krogstie 2016). At the beginning of a new decade, we have the opportunity to look forward and consider what we could achieve in the coming years in the era of big data revolution. Again, we have the chance to consider the desired future of data-driven smart sustainable cities. This will motivate many urban scholars, scientists, and practitioners to think about how the subject of “data-driven smart sustainable cities” might develop, and inspire them into a quest for the possibilities that can be created by the development and implementation of such cities. In this respect, we are in the midst of an expansion of time horizons in city planning. Sustainable cities look further into the future when forming strategies, and the movement toward a long-term vision arises from three major mega trends that shape our societies at a growing pace: sustainability, ICT, and urbanization. Recognizing a link between these trends, sustainable cities across the globe have adopted ambitious goals that extend far into the future and have developed different pathways to achieve them (Bibri and Krogstie 2019b).

1.3

The Aim and Purpose of the Book

Integrating and fusing theoretical and practical perspectives from a number of city-related fields and scientific disciplines, this book explores the recent advances in the leading paradigms of urbanism, namely compact cities, eco-cities, and data-driven smart cities, and the evolving approach to their amalgamation under the umbrella term of smart sustainable cities. It addresses these advances by investigating how and to what extent the strategies of compact cities and eco-cities and their merger have newly been enhanced and strengthened through planning and development practices, and are being harnessed and leveraged by the technology solutions pertaining to data-driven smart cities. The ultimate goal is to improve sustainability and enable its synergistic effects on multiple scales. This entails developing and implementing more effective ways to contribute to, and support the balancing between, the three goals of sustainability, as well as to produce combined effects of the strategies and solutions of the three currently prevailing approaches to urbanism that are greater than the sum of their separate effects in terms of the tripartite value of sustainability. Taking the above into account, this book brings together the academic and scientific disciplines underlying sustainable urbanism, which underpin the understanding, development, application, and integration of design and technology, to improve and maintain the contribution of sustainable

cities to the goals of sustainable development over the long run toward achieving sustainability. In doing so, it highlights the need to consider the science and technology for environmental, economic, and social benefits, as well as the environmental, economic, and social evidence for the uptake of advanced technologies.

1.4

The Structure and Content of the Book

The book comprises 8 chapters. This chapter opens the subject of sustainable urbanism with a broad view, displaying the multifaceted knowledge of the subject matter that will inform the reading of it. It provides a platform to establish the tone of this book and to set the scene. As such, it covers research topic, background, as well as the aim, structure, content, organization, and design of the book. The main topics, concepts, research issues, knowledge gaps, opportunities, and prospects pointing to a need for elaboration or investigation in relevance to the scope of this book are introduced in this chapter and then developed further or addressed in more details in the subsequent chapters. Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive state–of–the–art review of compact urbanism as a set of planning and development practices and strategies, focusing on the three dimensions of sustainability and the significant, yet untapped, potential of big data technology for enhancing such practices and strategies under what is labelled “data–driven smart sustainable urban form.” Chapter 3 examines how the compact city model is practiced and justified in urban planning and development. In this regard, it seeks to answer these two questions: What are the prevalent design principles and strategies of the compact city model, and in what ways do they mutually complement one another in terms of producing the expected benefits of sustainability? To what extent does the compact city model support and contribute to the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainable development? Chapter 4 provides a comprehensive state-of-the-art review of the field of ecological urbanism in relation to sustainable urbanism and data-driven smart urbanism. In doing so, it addresses the conceptual, theoretical, discursive, and practical dimensions of these approaches to urbanism; the multiple and diverse models, design principles and strategies, and ideals and benefits of ecological urbanism; the key deficiencies, challenges, uncertainties, and opportunities pertaining to sustainable urbanism; as well as new frameworks for data-driven smart sustainable/ecological urbanism. This is further supported by a critical discussion with respect to Science, Technology, and Society linkages and concerns. Chapter 5 examines how the eco-city model and especially its three sustainability dimensions are practiced and

1.4 The Structure and Content of the Book

justified in urban planning and development at the local level as motivated by the increased interest in developing sustainable urban districts. In this light, it seeks to answer these two questions: What are the key strategies of the eco-city district model, and in what ways do they mutually complement one another in terms of producing the expected benefits of sustainability? To what extent does the eco-city district model support and contribute to the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainability? Chapter 6 is important from a conceptual standpoint. It sheds light on the kind of wicked problems that are associated with sustainable urbanism and its smart dimension, and explores the usefulness of big data uses within this domain. Further, it analyzes the role of urban science and data-intensive science, as informed and enabled by big data science and analytics, respectively, in transforming what has been termed as urban sustainability science as an integrated scientific field. In so doing, it offers a conceptual framework for integrating all the ingredients. Chapter 7 sets forth a conceptually new framework according to which urban intelligence functions should be developed and applied based on the recent advances in big data science and analytics and the underpinning technologies to facilitate urban sustainability transitions. Specifically, it looks at data-driven smart sustainable urbanism, with a focus on new urban intelligence functions and related processes, systems, and sciences. Further, it proposes and illustrates a novel framework for data-driven smart sustainable cities on the basis of advanced technologies and data-intensive approaches to science. Chapter 8 provides a state-of-the-art review of the IoT and big data analytics in terms of their core enabling technologies, infrastructures, and applications within smart cities and smart sustainable cities. Further, it proposes an integrated framework for smart sustainable cities, which is intended to illustrate how the informational landscape of smart cities based on the IoT and big data analytics could enhance the physical landscape of sustainable cities as to their strategies in ways that can enhance their sustainability performance on the basis of the IoT-enabled big data applications. Chapter 9 investigates how the emerging data-driven smart city is being practiced and justified in terms of the development and implementation of its innovative applied solutions for advancing sustainability. In this light, the focus will be on the core features characterizing this emerging paradigm of urbanism, namely technologies, applications, competences, infrastructure, and data sources in the context of London and Barcelona as the leading data-driven smart cities in Europe.

5

Chapters 10 sets out to identify and integrate the underlying components of a novel model for data-driven smart sustainable cities of the future. This entails amalgamating the leading paradigms of urbanism in terms of their strategies and solutions, namely compact cities, eco-cities, and data– driven smart cities. This is grounded in the outcome of six case studies conducted on these cities. This empirical research is part of an extensive futures study whose aim is to analyze, investigate, and develop a novel model for data-driven smart sustainable cities of the future using a backcasting approach. This chapter thus reports the outcome of Step 5 of this backcasting study: specify and merge the underlying components of the socio–technical system to be developed by answering 4 guiding questions have a standardized scholarly research structure, which makes them easy to navigate and read. Specifically, these chapters are presented and structured in the form of journal articles consisting of abstract, introduction, analysis, discussion, and conclusion. Most of them include research methodologies together with conceptual, theoretical, and disciplinary foundations.

1.5

The Organization and Design of the Book

This book has been organized in a way to achieve two main outcomes. Firstly, it is written so that the readers can read it easily from end to end. Whether the readers read it in several sessions or go through a little every now and then, they will find it interesting to read and accessible—especially those with passionate interest in, and prior knowledge about, sustainable urbanism and its data-driven smart dimension, or with deep curiosity about big data computing as a disruptive technology and its far-reaching implications for urban sustainability. Secondly, it is written so that the readers can call upon specific parts of its content in an easy to do manner. Indeed, each of its chapters can be read on its own or in sequence. It is difficult to assign a priority rating to the chapters given that the book is intended for readers with various backgrounds and interests, but the readers will get the best out of it from reading the whole book in the order it is written so that they can gain a deep understanding of the topic on focus. However, if the readers are short of time and must prioritize, they can start with those chapters they find of highest relevance and importance based on their needs. Therefore, as to how relevant and important the topics of the book are, the choice is yours—based on your own assessment and interpretation. To facilitate embarking on exploring the field of sustainable urbanism, this book has been designed around three related aims, namely:

6

1

Introduction: Sustainable Urbanism and the Potential of its Synergic Integration …

1. To help the reader gain essential underpinning knowledge about the compact, ecological, and data-driven approaches to sustainable urbanism. 2. To enable the reader to develop a broader understanding of the emerging integrative approach to the leading paradigms of urbanism, as they make connections between their own understandings of the current challenges pertaining to sustainability and urbanization and the evolving urban transformation being instigated by big data analytics and the IoT and advanced urban planning and design practices. 3. To encourage the reader to take part in the ongoing debate about sustainable urbanism in the era of big data and pervasive computing and the ensuing datafication of the contemporary city. The data avalanche is here. This book has been carefully designed to provide the repository of knowledge required to explore the realm of compact, ecological, and data-driven paradigms of urbanism from a holistic perspective. This is an extremely complex, dynamic, and challenging area of thinking and practice, and hence, it is well worth exploring it in some depth and from a multi-perspectival approach. The best way to enable the reader to embark on such an exploration is to seamlessly integrate multiple theories and practices and to harness this integration in relevance to sustainability and its advancement in a rather unified analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and implementation. Achieving this kind of amalgamation in the form of a systematic investigation is the main strength and major merit of this book. And succeeding in doing so is meant to provide the readers with valuable insights into the emerging scientific shifts and technological innovations and their role in and potential for advancing sustainable cities and making living in them an attainable reality, as well as into the more effective ways of addressing and overcoming the challenges of sustainability in the face of the expanding urbanization through integrating the prevailing models of sustainable urbanism. This is meant to offer the people of the ecologically advanced nations the resources with which to evaluate the opportunities for sustainable cities to win the battle of sustainability and to tackle the pressure of urbanization in the years ahead. This is believed to be an important achievement in its own right, and certainly makes this book a rewarding learning experience for those who feel they could deepen their understanding of sustainable urbanism and its data-driven smart dimension. While some of us might shy away from foreseeing what the future urban world will look like with the imminent advancements and disruptive innovations in big data analytics and the IoT, it is certain that it will be a very different world from what has hitherto been experienced on many scales. I wish you well on the exploration journey.

References Al Nuaimi, E., Al Neyadi, H., Nader, M., & Al–Jaroodi, J. (2015). Applications of big data to smart cities. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 6(25), 1–15. Angelidou, M., Artemis, P., Nicos, K., Christina, K., Tsarchopoulos, P., & Anastasia, P. (2017). Enhancing sustainable urban development through smart city applications. The Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 1–25. Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., et al. (2012). Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal, 214, 481–518. Bettencourt, L. M. A. (2014). The uses of big data in cities. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Santa Fe Institute. Bibri, S. E. (2018a). Smart sustainable cities of the future: The untapped potential of big data analytics and context aware computing for advancing sustainability. Germany, Berlin: Springer. Bibri, S. E. (2018b). The IoT for smart sustainable cities of the future: An analytical framework for sensor-based big data applications for environmental sustainability. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 230–253. Bibri, S. E. (2019a). Big data science and analytics for smart sustainable urbanism: Unprecedented paradigmatic shifts and practical advancements. Germany, Berlin: Springer. Bibri, S. E. (2019b). The anatomy of the data–driven smart sustainable city: Instrumentation, datafication, computerization and related applications. Journal of Big Data, 6, 59. Bibri, S. E. (2019c). On the sustainability of smart and smarter cities in the era of big data: An interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary literature review. Journal of Big Data, 6(25), 2–64. Bibri, S. E. (2019d). Data–driven smart sustainable urbanism: The intertwined societal factors underlying its materialization, success, expansion, and evolution. GeoJournal (2019). https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10708-019-10061-x. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2016). On the social shaping dimensions of smart sustainable cities: A study in science, technology, and society. Sustainable Cities and Society, 29, 219–246. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017a). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 183–212. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017b). ICT of the new wave of computing for sustainable urban forms: Their big data and context–aware augmented typologies and design concepts. Sustainable Cities and Society, 32, 449–474. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2019a). A scholarly backcasting approach to a novel model for smart sustainable cities of the future: Strategic problem orientation. City, Territory, and Architecture (in press). Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2019b). Generating a vision for smart sustainable cities of the future: A scholarly backcasting approach. European Journal of Futures Research (in press). Bibri, S. E. (2020). Compact urbanism and the synergic potential of its integration with data-driven smart urbanism: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Journal of Land Use Policy (in press). Bibri, S. E., Krogstie, J., & Kärrholm, M. (2020). Compact city planning and development: Emerging practices and strategies for sustainable development goals. Journal of Developments in Built Environment (in press). Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2020a). Smart eco–city strategies and solutions for sustainability: The cases of royal seaport, Stockholm, and Western Harbor, Malmö, Sweden. Urban Science, 4(1), 1–42. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2020b). The emerging data-driven smart city and its innovative applied solutions for sustainability: The cases of London and Barcelona. Journal of Energy Informatics (in press).

References Bifulco, F., Tregua, M., Amitrano, C. C., & D’Auria, A. (2016). ICT and sustainability in smart cities management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), 132–147. Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City Anal Urban Trends Cult Theory. Policy Action, 12(3), 303–320. Kitchin, R. (2014). The real–time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79, 1–14. Kitchin, R. (2016). The ethics of smart cities and urban science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374, 20160115. Kourtit, K., Nijkamp, P., & Arribas-Bel, D. (2012). Smart cities perspective—A comparative European study by means of self– organizing maps. Innovation, 25(2), 229–246. Kramers, A., Wangel, J., & Höjer, M. (2016). Governing the smart sustainable city: The case of the Stockholm Royal Seaport. In Proceedings of ICT for Sustainability (Vol. 46, pp. 99–108). Amsterdam: Atlantis Press. Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, 11–26. Neuman, P., & Jennings, I. (2008). Cities as sustainable ecosystems. Principles and practices. London: Island press.

7 Pantelis, K., & Aija, L. (2013). Understanding the value of (big) data. In Big data 2013 IEEE International Conference on IEEE (pp. 38– 42). Rapoport, E., & Vernay, A. L. (2011). Defining the eco–city: A discursive approach. In Paper Presented at the Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment Conference, International Eco–Cities Initiative (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam: The Netherlands. Shahrokni, H., Årman, L., Lazarevic, D., Nilsson, A., & Brandt, N. (2015a). Implementing smart urban metabolism in the Stockholm Royal Seaport: Smart city SRS. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19 (5), 917–929. Shahrokni, H., Lazarevic, D., & Brandt, N. (2015b). Smart urban metabolism: Towards a real–time understanding of the energy and material flows of a city and its citizens. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 65–86. Townsend, A. (2013). Smart cities—Big data, civic hackers and the quest for a new utopia. New York: Norton & Company. Williams, K. (2010). Sustainable cities: Research and practice challenges. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 1(1), 128–132.

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality in Sustainable Urbanism in the Era of Big Data Revolution: A Comprehensive State-of-the-Art Literature Review

2.1

Introduction

Sustainable cities have been the leading global paradigm of urban planning and development (e.g., Bibri 2019a; Jabareen 2006; Van Bueren et al. 2011; Wheeler and Beatley 2010; Whitehead 2003; Williams 2009a, b) for more than three decades. They represent an umbrella term for various models of sustainable urban forms, including compact cities. In the early 1990s, the discourse on sustainable development produced the notion of compact city planning and development that became a hegemonic response to the challenges of sustainable development (Jenks and Dempsey 2005) by focusing on intensification, creating limits to urban growth, encouraging mixed use and diverse development, and placing a greater focus on the role of public transportation and quality of urban design (Arbury 2005). In the EU Green Paper of the Urban Environment, the compact city model was advocated as the most sustainable for urban development (CEC 1990). Indeed, according to many studies (e.g., Bibri and Krogstie 2017b; Jabareen 2006; Næss 2013; Newman and Kenworthy 1999), the compact city can promote sustainability by reducing the amount of travel and shortening commute time; decreasing car dependency; lowering per capita rates of energy use; limiting the consumption of building and infrastructure materials; mitigating pollution; maintaining the diversity for choice among workplaces, service facilities, and social contacts; and limiting the loss of green and natural areas. Cities can harness the advantages of agglomeration and tap into the tremendous variety of benefits that compact cities have to offer through proper planning, development, and governance. In particular, cities as the most compact settlements of people have a tremendous effect on environmental changes (Girardet and Schumacher 1999), and low population density is the most environmentally harmful form in urban structures (UN-Habitat 2014b).

The benefits of compact cities, as research from around the globe suggests, are not guaranteed as desired outcomes. This relates to the issues argued against by the critics of the compact city model that should be addressed so that this model can gain in more popularity. By and large, most of these issues pertain to the unforeseen consequences and unanticipated effects of compact cities that fall under what is called in urban planning “wicked problems,” a term that has gained more currency in urban policy analysis after the adoption of sustainable development within urban planning since the early 1990s, and that are often overlooked because of failing to approach compact cities from a holistic approach, or to treat them in too immediate and simplistic terms. Rittel and Webber (1973), the first to define the term, associate wicked problems with urban planning, arguing that the essential character of wicked problems is that they cannot be solved in practice by a central planner. Such problems are so complex and dependent on so many factors that it is hard to grasp what exactly the problem is, or how to tackle it. In other words, they are difficult to explain and impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are not easy to recognize. In addition, in the current climate of the unprecedented urbanization and increased uncertainty of the world, it may be more challenging for cities in developed countries to configure themselves more sustainably. The predicted 70% rate of urbanization by 2050 (UN 2015) reveals that the sustainability of the urban environment will be a key factor in the global resilience to forthcoming changes. This implies that the city governments will face significant challenges pertaining to environmental, economic, and social sustainability due to the issues engendered by urban growth. These include increased energy consumption, pollution, toxic waste disposal, resource depletion, inefficient management of urban infrastructures and facilities, inadequate planning processes and decision-making systems, poor housing and

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. E. Bibri, Advances in the Leading Paradigms of Urbanism and their Amalgamation, Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41746-8_2

9

10

working conditions, saturated transport networks, endemic congestion, and social inequality and vulnerability (Bibri 2019a; Bibri and Krogstie 2017a). In a nutshell, urban growth raises a variety of problems that tend to jeopardize the sustainability of cities, as it puts an enormous strain on urban systems and processes as well as ecosystem services. Against the backdrop of the unprecedented rate of urbanization and the mounting challenges of sustainability, an array of alternative ways of planning, designing, managing, and governing cities based on advanced ICT has materialized and is rapidly evolving, providing the raw material for how sustainable urban forms as leading paradigms of sustainable urbanism can improve, advance, and maintain their contribution to the goals of sustainable development (Bibri 2018b, 2019a, b, c; Bibri and Krogstie 2017c), as well as for how smart cities can transition toward the needed sustainable development (e.g., Al Nuaimi et al. 2015; Batty et al. 2012). These two main urbanism approaches: sustainable cities and smart cities, as a set of interrelated practices have been developing for quite some time: since the diffusion of sustainable development around the early 1990s and the prevalence of ICT around the mid-1990s, respectively. But what is presently new is that the emerging initiatives and endeavors are shifting from merely focusing on the application of sustainability knowledge to city planning and design or the development and implementation of smart technologies to optimize these urban practices to integrating the sustainable city and the smart city as both landscapes and approaches. (Bibri 2019f). There is an increasing recognition that advanced ICT constitutes a promising response to the challenges of sustainable development in the face of urbanization due to its tremendous, yet untapped, potential for solving many socio-economic and environmental problems (see, e.g., Angelidou et al. 2017; Batty et al. 2012; Bibri and Krogstie 2017a, 2019a, b; Höjer and Wangel 2015; Kramers et al. 2016). Therefore, advanced ICT has recently come to the fore and become of fundamental importance as to mitigating the negative effects of urbanization and tackling the conundrums of sustainability. Many urban development approaches emphasize the role of big data technologies and their novel applications as an advanced form of ICT in advancing sustainability (e.g., Al Nuaimi et al. 2015; Batty et al. 2012; Bettencourt 2014; Bibri 2018b, 2019a, b, c; Pantelis and Aija 2013). Indeed, there has recently been a conscious push for cities across the globe to be smarter and more sustainable by developing and implementing big data technologies and their novel applications in relation to various urban domains to enhance and optimize urban designs, strategies, and policies, operations, functions, and services. A large body of work has investigated the presumed outcome of the compact city model achieved through

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

planning practices and development strategies. More specifically, scholars have discussed to what extent this model of sustainable urban form produce the claimed environmental, economic, and social benefits of sustainability (Jenks and Jones 2010; Lin and Yang 2006; Burton 2002). Here the focus is often on the design principles and strategies underlying the compact city model (Bibri and Krogstie 2017b; Boussauw et al. 2012; Dumreicher, Levine and Yanarella 2000; Jabareen 2006; Kärrholm 2011; Van Bueren et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2000). This line of research directs attention to their link to the goals of sustainable development as to its tripartite composition. A recent wave of research has moreover started to focus on integrating these design principles and strategies with advanced ICT, notably big data technology and its novel applications, to improve the contribution of sustainable urban forms to sustainability (e.g., Bibri 2018b, 2019a; Bibri and Krogstie 2017b, 2019a, b). This line and wave of research opens the way for cross-domain analyses in terms of integrating physical, spatial, environmental, economic, social, cultural, technological, and scientific aspects. This chapter follows this path by providing a comprehensive state–of–the–art review of compact urbanism as a set of planning and development practices and strategies, focusing on the three dimensions of sustainability and the significant, yet untapped, potential of big data technology for enhancing such practices and strategies under what is labeled “data-driven smart sustainable urbanism.” Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What are the prevalent design principles and strategies underlying the compact city model, and in what ways do they mutually complement and beneficially affect one another? 2. What kind of conflicts and contentions does the compact city model raise, and how can they be explained? 3. To what extent does the compact city model contribute to the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainable development? 4. What kind of problems, issues, and challenges do pertain to the compact city as a model of sustainable urban form, and what is the potential and role of of big data technology in solving or mitigating them? In doing so, this interdisciplinary review endeavors to deliver a detailed analysis, critical evaluation, and well-worked out discussion of the available qualitative and quantitative research covering the topic of compact cities and the broader field within which it falls: sustainable urbanism, including its data-driven smart urbanism. The main added value of this work lies in its thoroughness, comprehensiveness, topicality, and original contribution in

2.1 Introduction

the form of new insights and perspectives as a result of synthesizing a large body of interdisciplinary work on the leading paradigms of urbanism: sustainable cities and data-driven smart cities. The latter pertains to the potential and role of big data technology and its novel applications in enhancing and optimizing urban operations, functions, designs, strategies, and policies beyond the ambit of the built form. This chapter unfolds as follows. Section 2.2 outlines the literature review methodology in terms of category, search strategy, selection criteria, organizational approach, and purpose. In Sect. 2.3, the relevant conceptual, theoretical, and discursive foundations are introduced, described, and integrated. Section 2.4 provides a thorough analysis, evaluation, and discussion of the compact city as a leading paradigm of sustainable urbanism and its relation to data-driven smart urbanism. Finally, this chapter concludes, in Sect. 2.5, by summerizing the key findings, providing some reflections, highlighting the key contributions, and suggesting some future research avenues.

2.2

Literature Review Methodology: A Topical Approach

This interdisciplinary review involves the exploration of a vast and diverse array of literature on the topic (including journal articles, conference proceedings, books, reports, and dissertations) of compact cities, integrating various disciplinary fields while putting an emphasis on the qualitative research in the field. Interdisciplinarity has become a widespread mantra for research within diverse fields, accompanied by a growing body of academic publications. The field of sustainable urban forms is profoundly interdisciplinary in nature, so too is the research within, and thus literature on, it. This scholarly perspective also applies to any review of this literature in the sense of using insights and methods from several disciplines. These include, but are not limited to: urban planning and development, sustainable development, science and technology, geography, ecology, environmental science, economics, and policy and politics. Accordingly, this interdisciplinary literature review is a topical, analytical, and organizational unit that is justified by the nature and orientation of the research field of sustainable urban forms. Adopting a topical approach to this review is thus deemed more relevant than a systematic one, and this chapter determines the usefulness of this substantive category of review. A review method was developed as a means to indicate the issues to be addressed, search strategy for retrieving the

11

sought articles and other documents, inclusion and exclusion criteria for identifying and selecting the relevant ones, and abstract review protocols.

2.2.1 Hierarchical Search Strategy and Scholarly Sources A literature search is the process of querying quality scholarly literature databases to gather applicable research documents related to the topic under review. A broad search strategy was used, covering several electronic search databases, including Scopus, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Sage Journals, in addition to Google Scholar. The main contributions came from the leading journal articles in relevance to the topic on focus. The hierarchical search approach to searching for literature involved the following: • Searching databases of reviewed high-quality literature; • Searching evidence-based journals for review articles; and • Routine searches and other search engines. In addition, the collection process is based on Scott’s (1990) four criteria for assessing the quality of the sought material, namely: 1. Authenticity: the evidence gathered is genuine and of unquestionable origin 2. Credibility: the evidence gathered is free from error and distortion 3. Representation: the evidence obtained is typical 4. Meaning: the evidence gathered is clear and comprehensible.

2.2.2 Selection Criteria: Inclusion and Exclusion To find out what has already been written on the topic of compact cities, the above search approach was adopted with the objective to identify the relevant studies addressing the diverse research strands that cover the questions this chapter intends to answer in relevance to the empirical study to be conducted. Therefore, the preliminary selection of the available material was done in accordance to the problems under investigation, using a variety of sources. This is underpinned by the recognition that once the research problems are set, it becomes possible to refine and narrow down the scope of reading, although there may seem to be a number of sources of information that appear pertinent. With that in mind, for a document to be considered in terms of its ability to provide any information of pertinence, it should

12

pertain to one of the conceptual/theoretical subjects and thematic/topical categories specified in accordance with the questions to be answered as representing in this context the headings of the sections and subsections of this chapter. The focus was on the documents that provided definitive primary information typically from a cross-domain analysis perspective. While certain methodological guidelines were deemed essential to ensure the validity of the review, it was of equal importance to allow flexibility in the application of the topical literature review approach to capture the essence of the research within the interdisciplinary field of sustainable urban forms, with a focus on compact cities. The whole idea was to “accumulate a relatively complete census of relevant literature” (Webster and Watson 2002, p. 16). On the whole, scoring the documents was based on the inclusion of issues related to the topic on focus. Conversely, the documents excluded were those that did not meet the specific criteria in terms of their relevance to the questions being addressed. As to abstract review, the abstracts were reviewed to assess their pertinence to the review and to ensure a reliable application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusionary discrepancies were resolved by the re-review of abstracts. The process allowed to further refine and narrow down the scope of reading. The keywords searched included “compact city,” “compact urban form,” “sustainable urban form,” “sustainable urban planning,” “sustainable cities,” “compact city planning,” “compact city development,” “compact city design,” “compact city policy,” “compact city dimensions,” “sustainable urban development,” “urban intensification,” “urban densification,” “compactness,” “urban density,” “mixed use development,” “land use and sustainable transportation,” “sustainable built environment,” “sustainable development AND urban form”, “sustainable cities AND big data technology,” “sustainable urban forms AND big data technology,” “sustainable urban development AND big data technology,” “smart sustainable cities AND big data applications,” “urban planning AND big data analytics AND sustainable development,” “data-driven smart sustainable urbanism,” and “data-driven smart urbanism AND sustainable development,” in addition to some derivatives of these keywords. These were used to search against such categories as the documents’ keywords, title, and abstract to produce some initial insights into the topic. To note, due to the limitations associated with relying on the keyword approach, backward literature search (backward authors, backward references, and previously used keywords) and forward literature search (forward authors and forward references) were

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

additionally used to enhance the search approach (Webster and Watson 2002).

2.2.3 Combining Three Organizational Approaches This literature review is structured using a combination of three organizational approaches, namely thematic, inverted pyramid, and the benchmark studies. That is to say, it is divided into a number of sections representing the conceptual subjects and thematic categories for the topic of compact cities. The analysis, examination, and discussion of the relevant issues is organized accordingly while, when appropriate, starting from a broad perspective and then dealing with a more and more specific one with respect to the selected studies. In doing so, the focus is on the major publications considered as significant in the field.

2.2.4 Purpose The literature review is typically performed to serve many different purposes. This depends on whether or not it is motivated by, or an integral part of, a research study, as well as on its focus and scope. However, considering the aim of this paper and its relation to the empirical study to be conducted, this review was carried out with the following specific purposes in mind: • To examine and discuss the underlying conceptual, theoretical, and discursive foundations of the compact city and their integration from an interdisciplinary perspective. • To analyze, evaluate, and synthesize the existing knowledge in line with such constructs set for the empirical study to be conducted. • To highlight the strengths, weaknesses, omissions, and contradictions of the existing knowledge, thereby providing a critique of the research that has been done within the field. • To discuss the identified strengths and weaknesses with respect to the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainability and the extent to which they are balanced. • To identify the knowledge gaps and research opportunities within the field. • To identify the key relationships between the findings of the relevant studies addressing the different strands of the topic on focus by comparing them and linking their results.

2.3 Conceptual, Theoretical, and Discursive Foundations

2.3

Conceptual, Theoretical, and Discursive Foundations

13

environment at the neighborhood scale, as suggested by several studies (Table 2.1).

2.3.1 The Built Environment The built environment refers to the human-made surroundings that provide the setting for human activity and what this entails in terms of land use, transport systems, and the spatial patterns of physical objects and their design features. It encompasses urban places and spaces created, restructured, and redesigned by people, including buildings, green infrastructure, and public infrastructure. The built environment is at the core of sustainable urban forms in the sense that the latter has emerged to enable the former to function in a sustainably constructive way, for example, to environmentally contribute beneficially to the planet for the present and future generations in terms of reducing material use, lowering energy consumption, mitigating pollution, and minimizing waste. However, the built environment has been referred to by a variety of terms, which tend to be used interchangeably. Handy et al. (2002) describe it as an amalgam of land use, urban design, and the transportation system, including patterns of human activity and mobility within the physical environment. Roof and Oleru (2008) define it as the human-made space in which people live, work, and recreate on a day-to-day basis. Past studies within urbanism have typically focused on different spatial levels of the built environment, including the neighborhood, district, city, and regional scales. For example, Handy et al. (2002) discuss measures of the built environment by categorizing them into neighborhood and regional features, with at least five interrelated and often correlated dimensions of the built

Table 2.1 Dimensions of the built environment

2.3.2 Sustainable Urban Planning, Design, and Development Urban planning is concerned with the development and design of land use and the built environment. As a governmental function in most countries, it is practiced on neighborhood, district, municipality, city, metropolitan, regional, and national scales, with land use, environmental, transport, and local planning representing more specialized foci. It has been approached from a variety of perspectives, often combined, including physical, spatial, geographical, ecological, technical, economic, social, cultural, and political. As an interdisciplinary field, it involves transportation planning, environmental planning, land-use planning, policy recommendations, and public administration, as well as strategic thinking, sustainable development, landscape architecture, civil engineering, and urban design (Nigel 2007). Urban planning is associated with different kinds of urban systems, namely: • Built form (buildings, streets and boulevards, neighborhoods, districts, residential and commercial areas, schools, parks, public spaces, etc.). • Urban infrastructure (transport systems, water and gas provision systems, sewage systems, power distribution systems, etc.). • Ecosystem services (energy, water, air, food, climate regulation, etc.).

Dimension

Definition

Exemples

Density and intensity

Amount of activity in a given area

Persons per acre or jobs per square mile Ratio of commercial floor space to land area

Land use mix

Promixity of different land uses

Distance from house to nearest store Share of total land area for different uses Dissimilarity index

Street connectivity

Directness and availability of alternative routes through the network

Intersections per square mile of area Ratio of straight-line distance of network distance Average block length

Street scale

Three-dimensional space along a street as bounded by buildings

Ratio of building heights to street width Average distance from street to buildings

Aesthetic quality

Attractiveness and appeal of a place

Percent of ground in shade at noon Number of locations with graffiti per square mile

Regional structures

Distribution of activities and transportation facilities across the region

Rate of decline in density with distance from downtown Classification based on concentrations of activity and transportation network

Source Handy et al. (2002)

14

• Human services (public services, social services, cultural facilities, recreational and green spaces, etc.). • Administration (management, governance, policy, regulatory frameworks, practices, policy design and recommendation, technical and assessment studies, etc.). Sustainable urban planning is the process of guiding and directing the development and design of land, urban environment, urban infrastructure, and related processes, activities, and services in ways that contribute to sustainable development toward achieving sustainability. As such, it involves defining the long-term goals of sustainability; formulating sustainable development objectives to achieve such goals; arranging the means and resources required for attaining such objectives; and implementing, monitoring, steering, evaluating, and improving all the necessary steps in their proper sequence toward reaching the overall aim (Bibri 2019a). Urban design is an integral part of urban planning. It is concerned with planning, landscape architecture, and civil engineering, as well as sustainable urbanism, ecological urbanism, sustainable design, ecological design, and strategic design (Bibri and Krogstie 2017a). Dealing with the design and management of the public domain and the way this domain is experienced and used by urbanites, urban design refers to the process of designing, shaping, arranging, and reorganizing urban physical structures and spatial patterns. As to its sustainable dimension, it is aimed at making urban living more environmentally sustainable and urban areas more attractive and functional (e.g., Aseem 2013; Boeing et al. 2014; Larice and MacDonald 2007). In this respect, urban design is about making connections between forms for human settlements and environmental and social sustainability, built environment and ecosystems, people and the natural environment, economic viability and well-being, and movement and urban form. Urban development refers to urbanization with its different dimensions, notably physical (land-use change), geographical (population), societal (social and cultural change), and economic (agglomeration). Urban planning as a technical and political process is seen as a valuable force to achieve sustainable development through design, among other things. Sustainable urban development can be viewed as an alternative approach to urban thinking and practice. It focuses primarily on addressing and overcoming the escalating environmental problems and the rising socio-economic issues associated with the predominant paradigm of urban development by mitigating or eliminating its negative impacts on the environment and improving human well-being. In short, sustainable urban development

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

is a strategic approach to achieving the long-term goals of sustainability. As such, it requires that scholars, practitioners, organizations, institutions, and governments agree upon concrete ways to determine the most effective approaches and strategic actions in a concerted effort to reach a sustainable future.

2.3.3 Sustainable Cities There are multiple views on what a sustainable city should be or look like and thus various ways of conceptualizing it. Generally, a sustainable city can be understood as a set of approaches into operationalizing sustainable development in, or practically applying the knowledge about sustainability and related technologies to the planning and design of existing and new cities or districts. It represents an instance of sustainable urban development, a strategic approach to achieving the long-term goals of urban sustainability. Accordingly, it needs to balance between the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainability as an integrated process. Specifically, as succinctly put by Bibri and Krogstie (2017a, p. 11), a sustainable city “strives to maximize the efficiency of energy and material use, create a zero-waste system, support renewable energy production and consumption, promote carbon-neutrality and reduce pollution, decrease transport needs and encourage walking and cycling, provide efficient and sustainable transport, preserve ecosystems and green space, emphasize design scalability and spatial proximity, and promote livability and community-oriented human environments.”

2.3.4 Sustainable Urban Forms There are different approaches to sustainable cities, which are also identified as models of sustainable urban forms, including compact cities, eco-cities, green cities, new urbanism, landscape urbanism, and urban containment. Of these, compact cities are advocated as the most sustainable and environmentally sound model. Lynch (1981, p. 47) defines urban form as “the spatial pattern of the large, inert, permanent physical objects in a city.” Specifically, urban form represents aggregations of repetitive elements as integrated characteristics pertaining to land-use patterns, spatial organizations, and other urban design features, as well as transportation systems and environmental and urban management systems (Handy 1996; Williams et al. 2000). In other words, urban form results from bringing together many urban patterns, which “are made up largely of a limited

2.3 Conceptual, Theoretical, and Discursive Foundations

number of relatively undifferentiated types of elements that repeat and combine” (Jabareen 2006, p. 39). In concrete terms, the spatial pattern entails similarities and grouped conceptual categories (Lozano 1990) that comprise such components as building densities, block sizes and shapes, street designs, area configurations, spatial scales, public space arrangements, and park layouts (Jabareen 2006). In Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, Williams, Burton and Jenks, (2000, p. 355) conclude that sustainable urban forms are “characterized by compactness (in various forms), mix of uses and interconnected street layouts, supported by strong public transport networks, environmental controls and high standards of urban management.” Sustainable development has undoubtedly inspired a whole generation of urban scholars and practitioners into a quest for the immense opportunities and fascinating possibilities that could be explored by, and the enormous benefits that could be realized from, the planning and development of sustainable urban forms. That is to say, forms for human settlements that will meet the requirements of sustainability and enable the built environment to function in ways that enhance and optimize urban systems in line with the goals of sustainable development in terms of reducing material use, lowering energy consumption, mitigating pollution, and minimizing waste, as well as improving social equity, the quality of life, and well-being. The term “smart sustainable urban form” can be defined as a form for human settlements with all these characteristic features supported with the instrumentation, datafication, and computerization of the built environment on the basis of big data technologies and their applications in order to monitor, understand, analyze, plan, and design such form and to enhance and optimize urban operations, functions, and services in relation to various urban systems and domains in line with the goals of sustainable development.

2.3.5 Smart Sustainable Urbanism: A Data-Driven Approach Smart sustainable cities relies on constellations of instruments across many scales that are connected through multiple networks augmented with intelligence, which provide and coordinate continuous data regarding the different aspects of urbanity in terms of the flow of decisions about the physical, environmental, social, and economic forms of the city. The evolving research and practice in the field of smart sustainable urbanism tends to focus on harnessing and exploiting the ever–increasing deluge of the data that flood from urban systems and domains, as well as on leveraging the outcome in the transition to sustainable development. Urban systems include built form, urban infrastructure, ecosystem services, human services, and administration and

15

governance. Urban domains involve transport, traffic, mobility, energy, natural environment, land use, healthcare, education, science and innovation, and public safety. Accordingly, urban systems and domains, which overlap in many aspects, span the physical, environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability. Furthermore, smart sustainable urbanism entails developing urban intelligence functions as an advanced form of decision support on the basis of the useful knowledge that is extracted from large masses of data. Urban intelligence functions represent new conceptions of how smart sustainable cities function and utilize and combine complexity science, urban science, and data science in fashioning powerful new forms of urban simulations models and optimization and prediction methods that can generate urban structures and forms that improve sustainability, efficiency, resilience, and the quality of life (Bibri 2019a, c). In a nutshell, data–driven solutions are of paramount importance to the practice of smart sustainable urbanism in the light of the escalating urbanization. In this field, the operation and organization of urban systems and the coordination of urban domains require not only the use of complex interdisciplinary knowledge, but also the application of advanced technologies, sophisticated approaches, and powerful computational analytics (Batty et al. 2012; Bibri 2019a; Bibri and Krogstie 2018; Bibri, Krogstie and Gouttaya 2020; Bettencourt 2014). In their comprehensive survey on data– driven smart cities, Nikitin et al. (2016) point out that modern cities employ the latest technologies to support sustainable development given rapid urban growth, increasing urban domains, and more complex infrastructure. The technical features of sustainable urbanism entails the application of advanced ICT as a set of scientific and computational approaches and technical processes. Recent evidence (e.g., Al Nuaimi 2015; Angelidou et al. 2017; Batty et al. 2012; Bettencourt 2014; Bibri 2018a, b, 2019a, b; Bibri and Krogstie 2017b) lends itself to the argument that an integration of the components of sustainable urbanism (i.e., natural ecosystems, physical structures, urban forms, spatial organizations, natural resources, urban infrastructures, socio–economic networks, and ecosystem and human services) with cutting–edge big data technologies can create more sustainable, resilient, livable, and equitable cities. Achieving the goals of urban sustainability through sustainable urban development as a strategic process entails continuously unlocking and exploiting the untapped potential and transformational power of advanced ICT given its disruptive, substantive, and synergetic effects on the forms and practices of sustainable urbanism in the high of the expanding urbanization. Townsend (2013) portrays urban growth and ICT advancement as a form of symbiosis. One area of advanced ICT that has recently gained increased attention and prevalence is big data analytics. This

16

2

emerging paradigm of computing combines large–scale computation, new data–intensive techniques and algorithms, and advanced mathematical models to build and perform data analytics. Accordingly, big data computing demands a huge storage and computing power for data curation and processing for the purpose of extracting the useful knowledge intended more than often for immediate use in decision–making processes. It generally includes: advanced techniques based on data science fundamental concepts and computer science methods, data mining models, computational mechanisms involving sophisticated and dedicated software applications and database management system, advanced data mining tasks and algorithms, simulation models, prediction and optimization methods, data processing platforms, and cloud and fog computing models.

2.4

A Thorough Analysis, Evaluation, and Discussion of the Compact City Paradigm of Sustainable Urbanism

2.4.1 The Compact City Model 2.4.1.1 Genesis and Dimensions The compact city model is considered one of the planning and development strategies that can achieve more sustainable cities in terms of their environmental, economic, and social goals. As an idea that is aligned with the goals of sustainable development, the compact city was envisioned by Dantzing and Saaty (1973) as a city that enhances the quality of life but not at the expense of the next generation. The concept of the compact city became more established in the early 1990s, after the widespread diffusion of sustainable development, as a result of the near clinical separation of land uses because of suburban sprawl that had risen the need for travel trips, creating an upsurge in automobile use which in turn caused high levels of air and noise pollution, in addition to decaying city centers. In this respect, the European Commission highlighted a number of negative trends in urban development in their Green Paper on the Urban Environment (CEC 1990), and therefore argued for denser development, mixed land use, and the transformation of former brownfield sites rather than development in open green areas. According to Burton (2002), the compact city is taken to mean “a relatively high-density, mixed-use city, based on an efficient public transport system and dimensions that encourage walking and cycling.” According to another view, the compact city is characterized by high-density and mixed land use with no sprawl (Jenks, Burton and Williams 1996a, b; Williams et al. 2000) through urban intensification, that is, infill, renewal, development, redevelopment, and so on. The compact city

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

concept is associated with the term “urban intensification,” which “relates to the range of processes which make an area more compact” (Williams et al. 1996a). It was around the mid-1990s when the research led to the advocacy of combining mixed land use and compactness (Jabareen 2006). Mixed land use should be encouraged in cities (Breheny 1992). In addition, the compact city emphasizes spatial diversity, social mix, sustainable transportation (e.g., transit-rich interconnected nodes), as well as high standards of environmental and urban management systems, energy-efficient buildings, closeness to local squares, more space for bikes and pedestrians, and green areas (Bibri 2019a). It has been addressed and can be implemented at different levels, namely neighborhood, district, city, metropolitan, and region, and involves many strategies that can avoid all the problems of modernist planning and design in cities by enhancing the underlying environmental, economic, and social justifications and drivers. There are multiple definitions of the compact city, as an urban planning and design concept, in the literature (e.g., Jabareen 2006; Burton 2001; Jenks, Burton and Williams 1996a, b; Dempsey et al. 2010; Dempsey and Jenks 2010; Neuman 2005; Van Bueren et al. 2011). Most of these definitions tend to be associated with the wider socio-cultural context in which the compact city model is embedded in the form of projects and initiatives and related objectives, requirements, resources, and capabilities. In other words, there is diversity underneath the various uses of the term “compact city,” adding to the convergence or divergence in the way projects and initiatives conceive of what a compact city should be. In fact, there are great differences between compact cities in terms of their form whose key elements can be distinguished: density, surface, land use, public transport infrastructure, and the economic relationship with the surrounding environment (Van Bueren et al. 2011). In addition, there is a difficulty in analyzing what a compact urban form is, and which of its elements contributes more to the goals of sustainable development. One explanation of the contradictory findings in research is consequently the persistent lack of a clear definition for what a compact city actually is (Neuman 2005). The list of classifications provided in the UN-Habitat’s and other policy documents (e.g., UN-Habitat 2011, 2014a, c; OECD 2012a) is from a general perspective. Nevertheless, many cities having the highest level of sustainable development practices (e.g., Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.) have been studied on their compact development with the aim to contextualize the outcome to become practically applicable in other cities. Accordingly, lessons can (and should) be learned from other cities around the world. It is well understood that there cannot be a set of rigid, strict strategic

2.4 A Thorough Analysis, Evaluation, and Discussion …

guidelines to be implemented anywhere around the world to achieve sustainable urban forms. Sustainability depends on many intertwined factors, which are ultimately shaped by the national and local contexts. In view of that, the local opportunities and constraints of each city need to be addressed in a more integrated approach given the complexity of urban systems in terms of political, social, economic, and environmental life (Newman and Jennings 2008). In some instances, cities are evidently incomparable both in scale and in socio-cultural, political, and historical contexts, but the comparison can still be undertaken regarding the relative proportions of density and diversity across urban areas. Still, even if several attempts have been undertaken to establish “compact city” indexes, the heterogeneity of the concepts of density (Churchman 1999; Manaugh and Kreider 2013) and diversity (Manaugh and Kreider 2013), coupled with the prevalence of different indexes (Lee et al. 2015), is problematic for the practical implementation of policy. Therefore, the classifications listed in the UN-Habitat’s and other policy documents do not provide concrete guidelines for global implementation (Lim and Kain 2016). All in all, each city should deal with its own urban development and form, applying the compaction strategy and implementing policies to improve the health of the city and the quality of life for its citizens. Due to the above inconsistencies in urban research and its effect on practice as to planning policy, the concept “compact city” risks becoming a “boundary object” similar to the concept “sustainable development” (Muraca and Voget– Kleschin 2011). As a means of translation used to connect different, or create intersections of separate, social worlds, a boundary object is interpreted and used differently by various actors or across communities in light of their own experiences, needs, constraints, and/or biases. In this case, the concept of the compact city becomes vague enough to justify any type of urban development (Leffers 2015).

2.4.1.2 Core Compact City Principles and Strategies In this context, the term “principle” means a proposition that serves as the foundation for the compact city model, and the term “strategy” denotes an approach that is used to achieve the goals of sustainable development. The compact city model entails a set of common design principles and strategies. However, while many studies have been carried out on compact cities across the globe focusing on different approaches to compact urban planning and development, they do share the key dimensions of the compact urban form with a slight difference in detail, as illustrated in Table 2.2.

17

Taking a closer look at Table 2.2, it becomes noticeable that the most common design principles and strategies underlying the compact city are compactness, density, land use and social mixes, sustainable transportation, and green space. These are briefly separately described next. Compactness Generally, compactness proposes the density of the built environment and the intensification of its activities, land-use mixture, diversity, sustainable transportation, and efficient land planning to protect natural and agricultural areas. A denser, more diverse city with a greater mix of uses together with sustainable transportation and green space is what many cities pursuing the path of sustainability, not least within the ecologically advanced nations, are striving to achieve and maintain through diverse policies, practices, and strategies by developing and implementing a number of measures to improve their contribution to the goals of sustainable development (e.g., Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020; Hofstad 2012). As a widely acknowledged strategy for achieving desirable urban forms, compactness is about contiguity and connectivity, which suggests that future urban development pertaining to the physical dimension of urbanization (land-use change) should take place adjacent to existing urban fabrics or structures. Thus, the potential of currently existing building zones should be exploited to enable structural development in existing urban areas in the future based on strategies for inward development. This relates to the intensification of the built form, a major strategy which emphasizes more efficient land use by increasing the densification of development and activity (Jabareen 2006). The intensification approach includes development of less or undeveloped urban land and transformation or redevelopment of previously developed sites, as well as extensions and additions and conversions and subdivisions (Jenks 2000).

2.4.1.3 Density Density is a critical strategy in determining the compact urban form. Urban density refers to the ratio of dwelling units or people to land area. However, achieving a compact city is not only about increasing density per se or across different spatial scales, but also about good planning to achieve an overall more compact urban form. This relates to strategic future urban development associated with the potential for higher densities through densification. Land-Use Mix and Social Mix Land use refers to the distribution of functions and activities across space, grouped into different categories. Widely

18

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

Table 2.2 Approaches to and dimensions of compact urban form Scholars. Theorists, and organizations

Focus of studies

Dimensions

(UN-Habitat 2015)

Strategy of sustainable neighborhood planning

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Adequate space for streets Efficient street network High density Mixed land uses Social mix Limited land use specialization

(Jabareen 2006)

Design concepts of sustainable urban forms and their contribution to sustainability

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Compactness Density Mixed land uses Diversity Sustainable transport

(Kotharkar et al. 2014)

Measuring compact urban form

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Density Density Distribution Mixed land uses Transportation network Accessibility Shape

(Jones and Macdonald 2004)

Sustainable urban form components and economic sustainability

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Mixture of Land uses Density Transport infrastructure Characteristics of built environment Layout

(Dempsey et al. 2010, b)

Sustainable urban form components

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Density Mixed land uses Transport infrastructure Accessibility Built environment characteristics Urban layout

(Song and Knaap 2004)

Quantitative measure of urban form

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Density Mixed land uses Pedestrian access Accessibility Street design and circulation system

(OECD 2012b)

Policies of compact city: a comparative assessment

1. Compactness 2. Impact of compact city policies

(Bertaud 2001)

Analysis of spatial organization of large cities

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Spatial Distribution of Population Spatial Distribution of Trips Average density and land consumption Density profile Population by distance to center of gravity

(Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020)

Urban planning practices and development strategies for sustainable development

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Density Compactness Mixed land use Diversity Sustainable transportation Green space

(Neuman 2005)

Static versus dynamic planning and design, i.e., forms versus processes

1. High residential and employment density 2. Mixture of land uses 3. Fine grain of land uses (proximity of varied uses and small relative size of land parcels) 4. Increased social and economic interactions 5. Contiguous development (some parcels/structures may be vacant or abandoned or surface parking) 6. Contained urban development, demarcated by legible limits 7. Urban infrastructure, especially sewerage and water mains 8. Multimodal transportation 9. High degrees of accessibility: local/regional 10. High degrees of street connectivity (internal/external), including sidewalks and bicycle lanes 11. High degree of impervious surface coverage 12. Low open—space rat 13. Unitary control of planning of land development, or closely coordinated control 14. Sufficient government fiscal capacity to finance urban facilities and infrastructure

2.4 A Thorough Analysis, Evaluation, and Discussion …

recognized for its important role in achieving sustainable urban form, land-use mix denotes the diversity and proximity of compatible land uses, a form of cross-sectional residential, commercial, institutional, and cultural infrastructures associated with living, working, and service and amenity provision. As a preferred typology in sustainable urban planning and development, diversity, which overlaps with land-use mix as to the variety of land uses, entails building densities, housing for all income groups through inclusionary zoning, a variety of housing types, job-housing balances, household sizes and structures, cultural diversity, and age groups, thereby representing the socio-cultural context of the compact city (Bibri 2019a). Indeed, diversity has been used interchangeably with social mix (housing types and options, demographics, lifestyles, etc.) in the literature. Suggested to be achieved by the availability of different housing options in terms of price ranges, tenure type and building types, and the availability of diversity of jobs in the proximity, social mix is defined as the presence of residents from different backgrounds and income levels in the same neighborhood (UN-Habitat 2015). Sustainable Transportation Sustainable transportation means services that reflect the full social and environmental costs of their provision; that balance the needs for mobility and safety with the needs for accessibility, environmental quality, and neighborhood livability; and that have enough carrying capacity (Jordan and Horan 1997). It is a key strategy for achieving sustainable urban forms. Indeed, it is by relying on sustainable transportation that the dense, diverse, and mixed-use patterns characterizing the compact city enable it to secure environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially beneficial development (Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020). As a key component of sustainable transportation, in addition to cycling and walking, the public transport system represents one of the most important driving factors in order to reach a more sustainable city. The public transport system involves both the physical infrastructure, including roads, railroad tracks, and sidewalks, as well as the level and quality of services provided to citizens, e.g., great bus and train frequency and faster journey time. As regards the advantages of sustainable transportation, it operates the transport system at maximum efficiency, provides favorable conditions for energy-efficient forms of transport, limits CO2 emissions, allows equitable accessibility to services and facilities, promotes renewable energy sources, decreases travel needs and costs, minimizes land use, and supports a vibrant economy. Green Space Greening of the city is an important design concept for sustainable urban forms. Green space has the ability to

19

contribute positively to some key agendas of sustainability in urban areas (Swanwick et al. 2003). Green space can be defined as the areas of nature found in the urban landscape. It includes trees, grassy patches, water features, flowerbeds, and rock gardens. For example, Swedish cities operate with the concept of “green structure” in their compact planning and development, which comprises larger green areas, waterways and streams, shorelines, city parks, agricultural land, and natural areas as one common structure (Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020). Green structure plans emphasize the benefits and losses of green structures.

2.4.2 The Compact City Ideal: Benefits and Effects As widely acknowledged, the image of the compact city has proven to be a highly influential translation of what a sustainable city should be, carried by the significance of the design principles and strategies underlying this model of sustainable urban form. Ideally, a compact city secures environmentally sound, socially beneficial, and economically viable development through dense and mixed-use patterns that rely on sustainable transportation (Burton 2000; 2002; Dempsey 2010a, b; Dempsey and Jenks 2010; Jenks and Dempsey 2005; Jenks and Jones 2010). A well-designed compact city should be able to achieve all of the benefits of sustainability; in view of that, the compact city becomes an all-encompassing concept for urban planning practices (Dempsey and Jenks 2010). The compact city is more energy-efficient and less polluting because people live in close proximity to workplaces, shops, and leisure and service facilities, which enables them to walk, bike, or take transit. This is in turn anticipated to create a better quality of life by creating more social interaction, community spirit, and cultural vitality (Jenks and Jones 2010). Further, travel distances between activities are shortened due to the heterogeneous zoning that enables compatible land uses to locate in close proximity to one another—mixed land uses. Such zoning primarily reduces the use of automobiles (car dependency) for commuting, leisure, and shopping trips (Alberti 2000; Van and Senior 2000). Integrating land use, transport, and environmental planning is key to minimizing the need for travel and to promoting efficient modes of transport. Transport systems play particularly an important role in the livability of contemporary cities (Newman and Kenworthy 1999). The interrelationship between transport, people, and amenities are argued to be the vital elements of the micro-structure of a sustainable city (Frey 1999). Important to note is that population densities are sufficient for supporting local services and businesses (Williams et al. 2000) in terms of economic viability. In high density

20

development, more land is available for green and agricultural areas, public transport services are superior, and the environmental footprint of the non-renewable resource consumption is steady (Suzuki et al. 2010). In sum, the compact city model has been advocated as the most sustainable urban form due to several reasons: “First, compact cities are argued to be efficient for more sustainable modes of transport. Second, compact cities are seen as a sustainable use of land. By reducing sprawl, land in the countryside is preserved and land in towns can be recycled for development. Third, in social terms, compactness and mixed uses are associated with diversity, social cohesion, and cultural development. Some also argue that it is an equitable form because it offers good accessibility. Fourth, compact cities are argued to be economically viable because infrastructure, such as roads and street lighting, can be provided cost-effectively per capita” (Jabareen 2006, p. 46). There is a large body of empirical work on compact cities, especially in the form of case studies. Such work tend to focus on a range of the environmental, economic, and social issues of sustainabiity, as well as on the a policy and planning practices and development and design strategies for achieving the goals of sustainable development. A set of recent studies is selected and compiled in Table 2.3. As regards the theoretical work, studies on compact cities have approached the topic from one or a combination of these perspectives: planning theory, design theory, resilience theory, scale theory, urban morphology, architectural theory, human geography, complexity theory, systems theory, action net theory, actor network theory, economic theory, spatial analysis, regenerative design, and causal relationship, in addition to a range of, discursive studies, critical studies, socio-technical studies, comparative studies, and so on.

2.4.3 Compact City Design Strategies and Their Link to the Sustainable Development Goals: An Empirical Basis Societies are ever changing and urban planning and development need to adapt to and keep up with global shifts and transitions. Hence, policies and strategies associated with compact cities need to be constantly assessed, adjusted, and improved in response to major trends while suiting the local context. This involves the quest for achieving and balancing the goals of sustainable development. This debate has been going on for decades now and will continue to go on well into this new millennium. However, sustainable urban visions, policies, and strategies are developed along the lines of argument supported by, among others, European Union policy documents that a compact city structure has positive effects on efficient use of resources, economic development, and citizen well-being (CEC 2011); that compact city

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

policies result in reduced energy consumption and emissions in transportation at different spatial scales, in conservation of farmlands and biodiversity, and in reduction of infrastructure cost and increase of labor productivity (OECD 2012a); and that cultural, social, and political dynamics are promoted by density, proximity, and diverse choices available within compact cities (CEC 1990). Many recent empirical studies have addressed the extent to which the compact city model produces the claimed environmental, economic, and social benefits of sustainability, especially in relation to those nations known for their high profile of sustainable development practices. These include, according to several rankings, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan (Dryzek 2005). Important to highlight, before delving into the discussion of the key issues, compact cities, whether within these nations or elsewhere, tend to exhibit differences, at varying degrees, in the way they practice the compact city model in terms of the application of the underlying design principles and strategies (see, e.g., Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020; Hofstad 2012; Lim and Kain 2016). This is due to their specific physical, geographical, socio-political, cultural, and historical aspects, especially in regard to urban planning and development practices and strategies. Besides, there are great differences between cities in terms of their urban form as to its key constituting elements (e.g., Van Bueren et al. 2011), and the local opportunities and constraints of each city need to be addressed in a more integrated approach (Newman and Jennings 2008). The compact city as a set of planning and development practices and strategies is justified by its ability to contribute to the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainable development. This corresponds to the results obtained from different empirical studies (e.g., Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020; Hofstad 2012). In fact, the centrality of the compact city ideal and especially its three sustainability dimensions in urban planning and development is found throughout the western world (Easthope and Randolph 2009; Healey 2002; Portney 2002; Raman 2009; Vallance et al. 2005). The measures of the compact city give a series of environmental, economic, and social benefits as they are designed to revitalize existing city areas, increase walking and cycling, enhance the use of public transportation, and preserve recreational and open green space (Jenks and Jones 2010). The compact city model provides better economic outcome (Quigley 1998), reduces energy consumption and pollution through densification (Breheny 1995; Mindali, Raveh and Salomon 2004), and alleviates social segregation (Burton 2001). Concerning environmental sustainability, compact cities aim to decrease travel needs and thus mitigate emissions through walking, cycling, and public transport; to reduce the pressure on green and natural areas; and to conserve energy

2.4 A Thorough Analysis, Evaluation, and Discussion … Table 2.3 Examples of case studies

21

Country

Issues

Policies

Gothenburg and Helsingborg, Sweden (Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020)

Urban development Socio–economic segregation Open green space preservation Increased congestion High immigration

Master Plan for Helsingborg City Comprehensive Plan for Gothenburg City The Concept of Compact City Green Infrastructure

Paris, France (OECD 2012b)

Urban development Car dependency Loss of green space

Regional development agenda Grand Paris Express connection

Hong Kong, China (Lau et al. 2002)

Urban development Traffic congestion Urban sprawl growth High immigration Flat land shortage

The Concept of Vertical City The Concept of Compact City The Concept of Sky City

Melbourne, Australia (OECD 2012b)

Decline in economic sectors Rapid urban growth Increased car and truck ownership Urban sprawl growth

Revitalization of Central Melbourne Deregulation policies on and conversion of land use

Amsterdam, Netherland (Nabielek 2012)

Scattered development Increased congestion High urbanization Urban sprawl growth High immigration

The Structure Plan The National Environmental Policy Plan The National Policy on Spatial Planning

Tokyo and Gothenburg (Lim and Kain 2016)

Density of built objects Scales of built objects Distribution of the diversity of built objects

The Concept of Compact City Comprehensive Plan for Gothenburg Master Plan for Tokyo Planning by Design Planning by Developmental Control Planning by Coding/Rule– based Planning

Auckland, New Zealand (Arbury 2005)

Rapid urban growth Car dependency Transportation system Urban sprawl growth

Regional Growth Strategy for Compact Development Regional Growth Strategy 2050

Toyama, Japan (OECD 2012b; Suzuki et al. 2010)

Increasing car dependency Population density decline Urban centers decline Agricultural land decline

Master Plan for Toyama City Toyama Compact City Model The City’s Density Target and Grant Program

through building densities that support combined heat and power systems. The main environmental aspects, namely sustainable travel and land efficiency, constitute a central part of planning and development practices in both Copenhagen and Oslo (Næss et al. 2011). The work of Newman and Kenworthy (1999) provides the evidence that the compact urban form is associated with a high use of public transports and less energy consumption. In relation to this, most of the collective transports are powered by electricity, and when this

is generated by renewable energy (i.e., solar, biofuel, wind, etc.), the reduction of emissions is very significant. Transport is arguably the single biggest issue for environmental debates relating to urban form (Jenks, Burton and Williams 1996a). Furthermore, several compact cities promote green space and natural areas. They share the research view that it is possible to attain a city that is both compact and green, according to an empirical study conducted by Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020. As concluded by Hofstad (2012),

22

urban green areas targeted by development strategies enhance the presence of compact city ideas through the discourse and institutionalization of green structure plans. Especially, natural areas are regarded as valuable recreational facilities and a way of making the city more healthy and vibrant, in addition to contributing to protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services (Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020). The research in this area tends to focus on the health advantages of urban green space (De Vries et al. 2002; Maas et al. 2006). It is crucially important for new approaches to urbanism to incorporate more ecologically responsible forms of settlement and living (Beatley 2000). Green space has the ability to contribute positively to the agendas of sustainability in urban areas (Swanwick, Dunnett and Woolley 2003). However, green space is a subject of debate due primarily to the core conception of the compact city model. In this respect, the argument that the compact urban form will reduce the pressure on green areas, ecosystem services, and biodiversity is less certain. While the goal of protecting large green areas outside strategic nodes through densification usually finds support, it is more uncertain when it comes to green areas located in or close to the urban fabric given the potential enticing opportunities for the new urban development projects to strengthen the economic goals of sustainability through compact city strategies (Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020). Of relevance to point out is that greening urban areas as an important design approach is typically associated with the concept of the eco-city as another prevailing sustainable urban form, so too is passive solar design. As an important concept for achieving sustainable urban forms, passive solar design entails reducing the demand for energy by using solar passive energy sustainably through particular design measures applied to buildings and urban densities. It positively affects the urban form as to its environmental health (e.g., Jabareen 2006). However, this design principle and strategy is not part of the compact city model, despite the intensification of development as a major strategy for compactness. The orientation of buildings and urban densities as a design feature affects the form of the built environment (Thomas 2003). Bibri (2019a) provides an account of passive solar design and its benefits in relation to sustainable urban forms. However, another design principle and strategy of the eco-city that is also of high pertinence to the compact city as regards to its environmental health is “smart urban metabolism” (Shahrokni et al. 2015). As argued by Marcotullio (2007), sustainable systems are a key innovation that the compact city needs to adopt because they create the infrastructure to naturally process sewage waste, grey water, and storm runoff on-site, in addition to preventing flooding on the urban hardscape and utilizing wastewater to fertilize and water gardens. The eco-city manages an ecologically

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

beneficial waste management system that promotes recycling and reuse to create a zero-waste system (Roseland 1997). Nevertheless, the compact city and eco-city models have many overlaps between them in their concepts, ideas, and visions, with some distinctive concepts and key differences for each one of them. According to Roseland (1997) and Harvey (2011), an ideal eco-city has a well-designed urban layout that promotes walkability, biking, and the use of public transportation system; ensures decent and affordable housing for all socio-economic and ethic groups; and supports future expansion and progress over time. Indeed, Bibri and Krogstie (2019b) argue for a complete amalgamation of the compact city model with the eco-city model based on the following rationale as grounded in a detailed literature review: • Being one of the most significant intellectual and practical challenges for three decades, the development of a desirable model of sustainable urban form continues to motivate and inspire collaboration between researchers, academics, and practitioners to create more effective design and planning solutions based on a more integrated and holistic perspective. • A critical review of planning approaches (e.g., compact cities and eco-cities) demonstrates a lack of agreement about which form is the most sustainable and environmentally sound. • Different scholars and planners may develop different combinations of design concepts to achieve the goals of sustainable development. They might come with different forms, where each form emphasizes different concepts and contributes differently to sustainability. • Sustainable urban forms have many overlaps among them in their concepts, ideas, and visions. While there is nothing wrong with such forms being different yet compatible and not mutually exclusive, it can extremely be beneficial and strategic to find innovative ways of combining their distinctive concepts and key differences toward more holistic forms for improving sustainability performance. • Compact cities have a form as they are governed by static planning and design tools, whereas eco-cities are amorphous: without a clearly defined form, thereby the feasibility and potential of their integration into one model that can eventually accelerate sustainable development toward achieving the optimal level of sustainability. • Neither real-world cities nor academics have yet developed convincing models of sustainable urban form, and the components of such form are still not yet fully specified. • More in-depth knowledge on planning practices is needed to capture the vision of sustainable urban development, so

2.4 A Thorough Analysis, Evaluation, and Discussion …

too is a deeper understanding of the multi-faceted processes of change to achieve sustainable urban forms. This entails conceptualizing multiple pathways toward attaining this vision and developing a deeper understanding of the interplay between social and technical solutions for sustainable urban forms. With respect to economic sustainability, compact cities aim to revitalize the city centers through the promotion of densely built dwellings, shops, businesses, services, and accessible transportation; to create proximity between people and their workplaces, thus making sustainable travel possible; to promote greater diversity among employers and job possibilities; to enhance commercial properties and housing markets, and to improve public transportation infrastructure (see, e.g., Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020; Hofstad 2012; Jenks and Jones 2010; OECD 2012b). Additionally, economic development is found to be a significant force in bringing about densification in studies undertaken in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark (Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020; Hofstad 2012; Mace et al. 2010; Næss et al. 2011). Of relevance to highlight moreover is that proximity, how close jobs, amenities, and services are to where people live as generally calculated based on the travel time and distance to their homes, adds another dimension to the compact city: self-sustaining. This means that the city has everything that people need within the community, including stores, employers, service providers, energy generation, waste disposal and processing, and small-scale agricultural production (community gardens and/or vertical gardening) (Li et al. 2016). Again, the latter is typically associated with the concept of the eco-city (Harvey 2011; Roseland 1997). As to social sustainability, compact cities tend to tie its goals to densification together with social, physical land use, temporal, and economic mixes. They aim to improve social integration, social cohesion, social capital, and public safety, as well as the quality of life through social interaction and ready access to services and facilities and to open green space and recreational areas (e.g., Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020). With respect to the latter, compact cities’ aims highlight the creation of an amalgam of dwellings, businesses, shops, amenities, and facilities that makes daily life simpler and life-long living possible, and creates diverse population and vital city centers and green and recreational areas for a healthy and vibrant city (Hofstad 2012). Mixed use development promotes vitality and diversity, thereby providing very significant benefits (Arbury 2005). As regards the former, the main problems compact cities struggle with include socio-economic segregation and social inequity (Bibri, Krogstie, and Kärrholm 2020; Hofstad 2012). The compaction strategy supports and promotes the fairness of the distribution of resources, reducing the gap

23

between the advantaged and the disadvantaged (Burton 2001). One of the arguments which supports social equity is the possibility to have a better access to services and facilities (Burton 2000). There also is evidence that compactness encourages social equity through the reduction of social segregation (Burton 2001). In light of the above, the economic goals seem to dominate over the environmental and social goals, notwithstanding the general claim about the three dimensions of sustainability being equally important at the discursive level. It can be argued that there is a goal hierarchy between the three dimensions of sustainability in compact city planning and development. This is consistent with the conclusion drawn by Hofstad (2012) that the economic goals remain at the core of planning, while the environmental and social goals play second fiddle, and also by Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020 that the former dominate over the latter in planning practices and development strategies. Nonetheless, compact cities have the ability to respond to different socio-economic and environmental issues while emphasizing the quality of life.

2.4.4 The Compact City Paradox: Conflicting and Contentious Issues Although research and policy argue for more compact cities, referring to higher density, diversity, mixed land use, sustainable transportation, and green areas, they are, as with all sustainable development approaches, associated with some conflicts. To begin with, the compact city model produces high levels of noise pollution due to the close proximity between dwellings, transport lines, business activities, and service facilities (De Roo 2000). Thus, the concentrated impact of dense populations on the environment and the lack of planning for noise pollution control prevent the desired outcomes of this model from being achieved, e.g., direct negative health effects. Moreover, a number of studies (e.g., Breheny 1992, 1997; Neuman 2005) argue that compact urban developments can increase land and dwelling prices, cause severe congestion in transport, and create social exclusion. Also, it is argued that neighborhood density might impact negatively on neighborhood satisfaction (Bramley and Power 2009), sense of attachment, and sense of the quality of public utilities (Dempsey, Brown and Bramley 2012). Breheny (1997) examines empirical data regarding the effects of the compact policies on the population, and concludes that it is deeply unsatisfied about the higher-density of dwellings development. Research asserts that more dense urban areas are often responsible for high crime levels (Burton 2000). In addition, arguing against the concept, critics of the compact city highlight increased ecological footprint due to

24

higher consumption, larger income gaps (Heinonen and Junnila 2011), decreased living space for low income groups, and accessibility issues to green and natural areas (Burton 2001). The first two issues might be linked to low income population in dense urban areas, rather than to the urban form itself (Glaeser 2011). They may also be attributed to a design problem and not necessarily linked to urban compactness given that crowding is a problem of perception of urban space (Kearney 2006). Similarly, negative social problems related to density may be due to the characteristics of the urban areas in terms of poverty concentration, rather than to the urban form itself (Bramley and Power 2009). Accordingly, urban problems and urban form are not clearly correlated. There is a risk that generic problems of urbanization are criticized as being problems of the compact city (Lim and Kain 2016). As Glaeser (2011, p. 9) puts it: “Cities do not make people poor; they attract poor people. The flow of less advantaged people into cities from Rio to Rotterdam demonstrates urban strength, not weakness.” The debate over the compact city as a set of planning and development strategies is actually between two groups: the “decentrists,” in favor of a decentralized form, and the “centrists,” in favor of a high-density compact form. Breheny (1996) discusses the view on the future of urban form in relation to decentrists, centrists, as well as compromisers. Based on the literature, the main critical arguments of the compact city are advanced by the decentrists who are skeptical on the environmental benefits delivered by the strategy; claim that the expected energy reduction is modest compared to the discomfort caused by the necessary rigorous policies; and believe that it is impossible to halt the urban decentralization phenomenon that fits the attitudes of the major part of the population. And this majority prefers to live in the tranquility of rural and semi-rural areas, far away from the chaotic city. In short, the dominant reasons for the heated debate revolve around GHG emissions, energy consumption, and the loss of open green areas in favor of the rapid urbanization. A key point against the compact city model regards the loss of urban green spaces in the cities and the inevitable development of green fields outward due to the increased congestion and high-density development (Breheny 1996). As another line of argument, policymakers have been “cherry-picking those aspects of the compact city as a sustainable urban model most attractive to their needs, such as increasing densities and containing urban sprawl…, which largely reflect dominant economic or environmental interests” (Dempsey and Jenks 2010, p. 119). While this may well hold, it is also safe to argue that developing robust alternatives in the face of the hegemony of unsustainable economic development within urban planning takes time

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

(Hofstad 2012), not to mention for such transformation to reshape existing socio-technical configurations. Worth pointing out is that the above conflicting and contentious issues are still largely associated with the whereabouts of the compact city as to its implementation and development, and what types of planning approaches are adopted to promote dense and diverse urban patterns. With regard to the former, according to Breheny (1997), the conclusions of many studies are pretty vague and vary from case to case when it comes to the environmental benefits delivered from the compaction strategy. With respect to the latter, there is a need to focus planning evaluation on the implementation of plans, particularly in the context where urban form attracts growing interest as the spatial concretization of urban sustainability (Oliveira and Pinho 2010). This pertains particularly to those countries with high level of sustainable development practices. In relation to this argument, as urban planning generally takes place in open systems with many purposeful parts (i.e., people and organizations pursuing their interests), it is difficult to link planning activities to outcomes in the urban reality (Laurian et al. 2010). Nonetheless, there are highly institutionalized planning systems (e.g., Sweden) to increase the likelihood that planning indeed affects the urban reality. Lim and Kain (2016) examine the differences in the outcome of the different planning approaches in Sweden and Japan in relation to urban characteristics, such as density and diversity.

2.4.5 Compact City Planning and Development Problems, Issues, and Challenges 2.4.5.1 Deficiencies, Limitations, Fallacies, and Uncertainties As a model of sustainable urban form, the compact city involves a number of problems, issues, and challenges when it comes to planning, design, and development at the technical and policy levels in the context of sustainability. Bibri and Krogstie (2019a) provide a detailed review of sustainable urban forms in terms of deficiencies, limitations, fallacies, and uncertainties, as well as new opportunities and prospects offered by advanced ICT, notably big data technologies and their novel applications. A tabulated version of the outcome of this review is presented in Table 2.4. To elaborate on one of the key issues related to this chapter: the fallacy of the compact city, Neuman (2005) contends that conceiving cities in terms of forms remains inadequate to achieve the goals of sustainable development; or rather, accounting only for urban form strategies to make cities more sustainable is counterproductive. Instead, conceiving cities in terms of “processual outcomes of urbanization” holds great potential for attaining

2.4 A Thorough Analysis, Evaluation, and Discussion …

these goals, as this involves asking the right question of “whether the processes of building cities and the processes of living, consuming, and producing in cities are sustainable,” which raises the level of, and may even change, the game (Neuman 2005). Monitoring, understanding, and analyzing this set of processes can well be enabled by advanced ICT to further improve sustainability in the face of urbanization. Another argument advanced by Neuman (2005, p. 22) is also of relevance in this regard: “form is both the structure that shapes process and the structure that emerges from a process.” If form “is an outcome of evolution” (Neuman 2005, p. 23), then the arrangement of how planning is undertaken to support and guide such an evolutionary process becomes an issue of importance (Lim and Kain 2016). In relation to this argument, a well-established fact is that cities evolve and change dynamically as urban environments, so too is the underlying planning and design knowledge that perennially changes in response to new emergent factors. To put it differently, cities need to be dynamic in their conception, flexible in their planning, scalable in their design, and efficient in their operational functioning in order to be able to deal with population growth, environmental pressures, and changes in socio-economic needs, in addition to keeping up with global shifts/trends, discontinuities, and societal transitions (Bibri 2019a). Durack (2001) argues for open, indeterminate urbanism due to its advantages, namely the tolerance and value of topographic, social, and economic discontinuities; continuous adaptation; and citizen participation, which is common to human settlements. This alternative approach to urbanism “recognizes discontinuities and inconsistencies as life-affirming opportunities for adaptation and change, offering choices for the future in accordance with the true definition of sustainability” (Durack 2001, p. 2). In light of the above, it is timely and necessary to develop and apply more innovative solutions and sophisticated approaches to deal with the challenges of sustainability and urbanization by incorporating them in urban planning, design, management, and operational functioning processes due to the dynamic, synergistic, substantive, and disruptive effects of advanced technologies. This relates to urban intelligence functions, which represent new conceptions of how sustainable cities function and utilize and combine complexity science and urban science in constructing powerful forms of urban simulations models and optimization and prediction methods that can generate urban forms, structures, and systems that improve sustainability, efficiency, resilience, equity, and the quality of life (Bibri 2019a, c). As pointed out by Durack (2001), accepting indeterminacy demands much more than settling for the structures of an immutable order, and adopting sustainability as a sincere objective requires planning and developing cities “not only in closer correspondence with nature, but also in recognition of the process of life itself.”

25

2.4.5.2 Wicked Problems in Sustainable Urbanism and the Relevance of Big Data Science and Analytics Generally, cities epitomize complex systems, more than the sum of their parts, and are developed through an array of multitudinous individual and collective decisions. As such, they are full of contestations and conflicts that are not easily captured and steered. The problems of cities are primarily about people and their environment and life. Physical, infrastructural, environmental, economic, and social issues in cities represent “wicked problems,” a term that has gained currency in urban planning and policy analysis, particularly after the adoption of sustainability within urban planning since the early 1990s (Bibri 2019a). In short, cities are characterized by wicked problems (Rittel 1969; Rittel and Webber 1973), that is, difficult to define, unpredictable, and defying standard principles of science and rational decision-making. In order to describe a wicked problem in sufficient detail, one has, as stated by Rittel and Webber (1973), “to develop an exhaustive inventory of all conceivable solutions ahead of time. The reason is that every question asking for additional information depends upon the understanding of the problem—and its resolution—at that time… Therefore, in order to anticipate all questions (…all information required for resolution ahead of time), knowledge of all conceivable solutions is required.” One implication of this is that when tackling wicked problems, they become worse due to the unanticipated effects and unforeseen consequences that were overlooked, because the systems in question were not approached from a holistic perspective, or were treated in too immediate and simplistic terms. The essential character of wicked problems is that they, according to Rittel and Webber (1973), cannot be solved in practice by a central planner. Bettencourt (2014) reformulates some of their arguments in a modern form in what is called the “planner’s problem,” which has two distinct facets: (1) the knowledge problem and (2) the calculation problem. The first problem refers to the planning data needed to map and understand the current state of the smart sustainable city in this context. It is conceivable that urban life and physical infrastructure could be adequately sensed in several million places at fine temporal rates, generating huge but manageable rates of information flow by the advanced forms of ICT. It is not impossible, albeit still implausible, to conceive and develop technologies that would enable a planner to have access to detailed information about every aspect of the infrastructure, services, social lives, and environmental states in a smart sustainable city. The second problem refers to the computational complexity to carry out the actual task of planning in terms of the number of steps necessary to identify and assess all possible scenarios and choose the best possible course of action. Unsurprisingly,

26 Table 2.4 Problems, issues, and challenges pertaining to sustainable urban forms

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

What to solve, address, and overcome

Deficiencies, limitations, fallacies, and uncertainties

Problems

• Not only in practice but also in theory and discourse have sustainable urban forms been problematic and daunting to deal with as manifested in the kind of the non-conclusive, limited, conflicting, contradictory, uncertain, and weak results of research obtained. This is partly due to the use of traditional collection and analysis methods and data scarcity. These results pertain particularly to the actual effects and benefits of sustainability as assumed or claimed to be delivered by the design principles and strategies adopted in planning and development practices • Sustainable urban forms fall short in considering smart solutions within many urban domains where such solutions could have substantial contributions to the different aspects of sustainability • Deficiencies in embedding various forms of advanced ICT into urban planning and design processes of sustainable urban forms • Sustainable urban forms remain static in planning conception, unscalable in design, inefficient in operational functioning, and ineffective in management without advanced ICT in response to urban growth, environmental pressures, changes in socio-economic needs, global shifts, discontinuities, and societal transitions • Realizing sustainable urban forms require making countless and complex decisions about green and energy-efficient technologies, urban layouts, building design, and governance • Divergences in and uncertainties about what to consider and implement from the design principles and strategies of the existing models of sustainable urban form • Sustainable urban forms are in themselves very complex in terms of management, planning, design, and development, so too are their domains in terms of coordination and integration as well as their networks in terms of coupling and interconnection • Sustainable cities and smart cities are weakly connected as ideas, visions, and strategies, as well as extremely fragmented as landscapes at the technical and policy levels • Sustainability goals and smartness targets are misunderstood as to their— rather clear—synergies • There is a need for solidifying the existing applied theoretical foundations in ways that provide an explanation for how the contribution of sustainable urban forms to sustainability can be improved and maintained on the basis of big data technology and its applications • There is no strategic model for merging the informational and physical landscapes of the existing models of sustainable urban form

Issues

• In relation to spatial scales, the existing models of sustainable urban forms tend to focus more on the neighborhood level than on the city level in terms of design and planning due to the uncertainties surrounding the design principles and planning practices as to their actual sustainability effects and benefits, coupled with the huge investments needed • In urban planning and policymaking, sustainable urban forms fall short in considering innovative solutions and sophisticated methods for urban operational functioning, planning, design, and development • Cities evolve and change dynamically as complex systems and urban environments, so too is the underlying knowledge of design and planning that is historically determined to change perennially in response to new factors

Challenges

• One of the most significant challenges is to integrate and augment sustainable urban forms with advanced technologies and their novel applications—in ways that enable them to improve, advance, and maintain their contribution to the goals of sustainable development • There are difficulties in translating sustainability into the built and infrastructural forms of cities. • There are difficulties in evaluating the extent to which the existing models of sustainable urban form contribute to the goals of sustainable development. It is not an easy task to even judge whether or not a certain urban form is sustainable (continued)

2.4 A Thorough Analysis, Evaluation, and Discussion …

27

Table 2.4 (continued) What to solve, address, and overcome

Deficiencies, limitations, fallacies, and uncertainties • One of the key scientific and intellectual challenges pertaining to sustainable urban forms is to relate the underlying design principles and strategies as well as infrastructures to their operational functioning and planning through control, automation, management, and optimization enabled by advanced ICT • There will always be challenges to address and overcome and hence improvements to make in the field of sustainable urban forms, and this has much to do with the perception underlying the conceptualization of progress concerning cities. This revolves around what we think we are aspiring to, what we assess “progress” to be, and what changes we want to make

Source Bibri and Krogstie (2019a)

the exhaustive approach of assessing all possible scenarios is impractical due to the fact that it entails the consideration of impossibly large spaces of possibilities. However, Bibri (2019d) sheds light on the wicked problems associated with smart sustainable urbanism and explores the usefulness of big data uses within this domain, as well as discusses the relevance of urban science and data-intensive science, as informed and enabled by big data science and analytics, respectively, to what has been termed as urban sustainability science. The author argues that the upcoming advancements in big data science and analytics and the underpinning technologies, coupled with the ever-increasing deluge of urban data, hold great potential to advance smart sustainable urbanism as well as urban sustainability science. His work highlights the transformative power of big data science and analytics as a new area of science and technology with respect to revolutionizing urban sustainability science through data-intensive science, as well as contributes to bringing data-analytic thinking to the practice of smart sustainable urbanism. Additionally, solutions to wicked problems require a great number of people to change their mindsets, and demand the input of multiple academic disciplines with relevant practical expertise, and the key is enabling these disparate experts to work together. Interdisciplinary research is an essential aspect of recent urban policies that create an environment for technological innovation in thinking about wicked problems. This requires that researchers work side-by-side with industry, local communities, policymakers, and decision-makers. Especially, to tackle wicked problems requires new technology research and development combined with implementation in practice. Indeed, interdisciplinary research alone is not sufficient to deal with wicked problems. To add, the poor understanding of how different development drivers, which are active within multiple sectors and involve multiple governance levels, co-produce compact cities is a key issue and concern that should be addressed to facilitate societal sustainability.

In light of the above, it is of crucial importance to develop and employ innovative solutions for solving, and sophisticated approaches into dealing with, the problems and challenges of sustainability and urbanization as of a wicked nature. This requires, among other things, a blend of sciences for creating powerful urban design principles and urban engineering analytical solutions. And advanced ICT, notably big data computing and the underpinning technologies, is extremely well-placed to initiate this endeavor given that its application to urban systems, domains, networks, and related processes and practices is founded on the integration of computer science, data science, urban science, complexity science, (Batty et al. 2012; Bibri 2019a; Bettencourt 2014; Kitchin 2014, 2015, 2016), sustainability science, and data-intensive science (Bibri 2019e) in particular in regard to what has come to be identified as urban sustainability science (Bibri, Krogstie and Gouttaya 2020, Bibri 2019d). As an emerging scientific discipline, urban sustainability science integrates urban sustainability and sustainability science and is informed by urban science and data-intensive science, which are in turn informed by big data science and analytics (see Bibri 2019d for a conceptual framework). Bibri (2019e) examines the unprecedented paradigmatic and scholarly shifts that the sciences underlying smart sustainable urbanism are currently undergoing in light of big data science and analytics and the underpinning technologies, and further discusses how these shifts intertwine with and affect one another in the context of sustainability. In this work, the main sciences on focus are urban science, sustainability science, and urban sustainability science, and the paradigmatic and scholarly shifts are brought about by data-intensive science. The author argues that data-intensive science, as a new epistemological shift, is fundamentally changing the scientific and practical foundations of urban sustainability. In specific terms, he elaborates, the new urban science—a field in which big data science and analytics is practiced and which is informed by urban sustainability science—is increasingly making cities more

28

sustainable, resilient, efficient, and livable by rendering them more measurable, knowable, and tractable in terms of their operational functioning, management, planning, development, and governance.

2.4.6 Towards Data-Driven Smart Sustainable Urban Forms 2.4.6.1 Advances in Sustainable Urban Planning and Development: Data-Driven Smart Solutions The role of innovative ICT-enabled solutions in advancing urban sustainability is becoming evident in the light of the rapidly evolving theoretical and practical work concerned with the integration of sustainable cities and smart cities in a variety of ways. The need for advanced ICT in its various forms to be embedded into and pervade the built environment is underpinned by the recognition that urban sustainability applications are of high relevance and importance to the research agenda of computing and ICT (Bibri and Krogstie 2016), especially big data science and analytics (Bibri 2019a, d, e, f). To unlock and exploit the underlying potential, the field of sustainable urbanism needs to extend its boundaries and broaden its horizons beyond the ambit of the built form and ecological design of cities to include technological innovation opportunities and data analytics/computational capabilities. Sustainable urbanism is a complex issue, with myriad problems surrounding urban systems. This is coupled with sustainable cities facing unprecedented physical, environmental, economic, and social challenges pertaining to urbanization. Therefore, sustainable cities are embracing the advanced forms of ICT, especially big data technology and its novel applications, to turn themselves into smart sustainable cities. Indeed, a new era is presently unfolding wherein smart sustainable urbanism is increasingly becoming data-driven (Bibri 2019a). Yet, data-driven smart sustainable cities are increasingly becoming more complex with the very technologies being used to understand and deal with them as to their planning, design, operational functioning, development, and governance. Hence, there is a need for more innovative solutions and sophisticated approaches as to the way they can be monitored, understood, analyzed, planned, and designed so as to be effectively operated, managed, and, thus, develop in line with the long-term goals of sustainability. This can be accomplished by developing and applying advanced technologies as new conceptions of how data-driven smart sustainable cities function. In this respect, cities can only be smart and sustainable if there are intelligence functions that are able to integrate and synthesize urban data to improve environmental and social sustainability, efficiency, resilience, and the quality of life (Batty et al. 2012; Bibri 2019c) through enhanced decisions about the physical, spatial, environmental,

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

economic, and social forms of the city. Especially, building models of cities functioning in real time from routinely and automatically sensed data is becoming the new reality, coupled with urban ubiquitous sensing getting closer to providing quite useful information about longer term changes (Batty et al. 2012; Kitchin 2014). With the above in regard, Chapter 6 examines data-driven smart sustainable urbanism, focusing on new urban intelligence functions and related processes, systems, and sciences, and further proposes and illustrates a conceptual framework for data-driven smart sustainable cities on the basis of advanced technologies and new sciences. It argues that urban intelligence functions as new conceptions of how data-driven smart sustainable cities function play a pivotal role in facilitating the synergy between their planning, design, operational functioning, development, and governance in terms of producing the benefits of sustainability. And that the upcoming developments and innovations in big data computing and the underpinning technologies, coupled with the unfolding and soaring deluge of urban data, hold great potential for enhancing and advancing smart sustainable urbanism practices. As to the proposed framework, it represents a conceptual structure intended to serve as a support or guide for building the model of data-driven smart sustainable cities that expands the structure into something useful on the basis of further qualitative analyses, empirical investigations, and practical implementations. This work is meant to contribute to bringing data-analytic thinking and intelligence to the domain of smart sustainable urbanism, and draws special attention to the clear prospect of big data science and analytics to transform the future form of such urbanism and to tackle the kind of complexities it embodies. All in all, new circumstances require new responses as regards smart sustainable urbanism and what it poses as complex challenges for traditional simulation, prediction, and optimization modeling. In addition, Bibri and Krogstie (2017b) explore and substantiate the real potential of advanced ICT to evaluate and improve the contribution of sustainable urban forms to the goals of sustainable development. This entails merging big data technologies and their applications with the design principles and strategies of sustainable urban forms to achieve multiple hitherto unrealized goals. Further, the authors propose a matrix to assist scholars and planners in understanding and analyzing how and to what extent the contribution of such forms to sustainability can be improved through advanced ICT. They also put forward a data-driven approach into investigating and evaluating this contribution as an alternative to traditional data collection and analysis methods, as well as a simulation method for strategically optimizing this contribution. To extend this word, Bibri and Krogstie (2018) develop, illustrate, and discuss a systematic framework for data-driven urban analytics and “big data”

2.4 A Thorough Analysis, Evaluation, and Discussion …

urban studies in relation to the domain of sustainable urbanism based on cross-industry standard process for data mining. This endeavor is in response to the emerging paradigm of big data computing and the increasing role of the underpinning technologies in organizing, planning, and designing sustainable urban forms. The intention is to utilize and apply well-informed, knowledge-driven decisionmaking and enhanced insights to improve and optimize urban operations, functions, services, designs, strategies, and policies in line with the long-term goals of sustainability. The authors argue that there is tremendous potential for advancing sustainable urbanism and transforming the knowledge of sustainable urban forms through creating a data deluge that can, through analytics, provide much more sophisticated, finely grained, wider-scale, real-time understanding and control of various aspects of urbanity in the undoubtedly upcoming Zettabyte Age.

2.4.6.2 The Unfolding Era of Data-Driven Smart Sustainable Urbanism The arguments presented and the opportunities discussed above are rather part of the ongoing debate on integrating sustainable cities and smart cities. The rationale for this integration is that sustainable cities have been problematic, whether in theory or practice, so is yet knowing to what extent we are making any progress towards sustainable cities, to reiterate. And as such forms are associated with a number of problems, issues, and challenges, to reiterate, much more needs to be done considering the very fragmented, conflicting picture that arises of change on the ground in the face of the expanding urbanization and the scarcity of resources. The current deficiencies, limitations, fallacies, and uncertainties concern the planning, design, and development of compact cities in the context of sustainability (e.g., Bibri 2018a, Bibri and Krogstie 2017a; Breheny 1992, 1996; Dempsey and Jenks 2010; De Roo 2000; Hofstad 2012; Jabareen 2006; Lim and Kain 2016; Neuman 2005; Williams 2010). They largely involve the question of how sustainable urban forms should be monitored, understood, and analyzed so as to improve, advance, and maintain their contribution to the goals of sustainable development (Bibri and Krogstie 2019a, b). The underlying argument is that more innovative solutions and sophisticated approaches are needed to overcome the kind of wicked problems, unsettled issues, and complex challenges pertaining to such forms with respect to urbanism practices, strategies, and approaches. This brings us to the issue of sustainable cities and smart cities being extremely fragmented as landscapes and weakly connected as approaches (e.g., Angelidou et al. 2017; Bibri 2019a, b; Bibri and Krogstie 2019a, b; Bifulco et al. 2016; Kramers et al. 2014), despite the proven role of advanced ICT and the untapped potential of big data technologies and their

29

novel applications for advancing sustainability under what is labeled “smart sustainable cities” (Bibri 2018b, c; Bibri and Krogstie 2017b; Bettercourt 2014; Shahrokni et al. 2015a, b). In light of the above, a recent research wave has started to focus on smartening up sustainable urban forms, which revolves particularly around amalgamating the landscapes of and the approaches to sustainable cities and smart cities in a variety of ways in the hopes of reaching the optimal level of sustainability (Bibri and Krogstie 2019a, b). This integrated approach, smart sustainable urban forms, tends to take several forms in terms of combining the strengths of sustainable cities and smart cities based on how the integration as an idea can be conceptualized and operationalized. As a corollary of this, there is a host of unexplored opportunities toward new approaches to smart sustainable urban planning and development as an attempt to mitigate or overcome the extreme fragmentation of and weak connection between the landscapes and approaches of sustainable cities and smart cities (Angelidou et al. 2017; Bibri and Krogstie 2019a, b), respectively. However, research on the uses of big data in relation to sustainable urban development tends to be scant. This paucity of research can be explained by the fact that smart sustainable cities are a new urban phenomenon and only became widespread during the mid-2010s (Bibri and Krogstie 2017a). In their article “Enhancing sustainable urban development through smart city applications,” Angelidou et al. (2017) analyze comparatively a total of 32 smart city applications that can be found in the Intelligent Cities Open Source (ICOS) community repository. The authors classify the applications according to, among other criteria, the environmental issue they address, namely high traffic density, high amount of waste, increasing air pollution, increasing energy consumption/sinking resources, loss of biodiversity and natural habitat, and sinking water resources. However, they neither specify nor provide any detail on these applications, and how they, relate to big data analytics. Gebresselassie and Sanchez (2018) ask, in their recent study on smart tools for socially sustainable transport, how smartphone applications (apps) can address social sustainability challenges in urban transport, if at all, with a particular focus on transport disadvantages experienced by citizens due to low income, physical disability, and language barriers and based on a review of 60 apps. This study reveals that transport apps have the potential to address or respond to the equity and inclusion challenges of social sustainability by employing universal design in general-use apps, including cost-conscious features and providing language options, as well as by specifically developing smartphone apps for persons with disabilities. The outcome of this study adds a new dimension to the compact city as to strengthening its social sustainability goals. However, while this is not to

30

imply that such apps are a panacea for the equity and inclusion issues related to urban transport—but only one of the tools that can be used to address them, there nevertheless are other urban domains where new apps of similar use need to be developed and mainstreamed to address the same issues, including healthcare, education, and public and social services, and so on. Moreover, while this study brings the social aspects of sustainability to the forefront, and helps to gain a better understanding of the application of smart tools for socially sustainable transport, there is no mention of the role of big data analytics in the functioning of such apps, or how they relate to it at all, despite the mention of some articles that in fact address big data analytics and its applications in smart cities in terms of the new smart applications proliferating urban transportation systems. Indeed, their operation must be based on big data on travel behavior, mobility models, and multimodal transport. See Batty et al. (2012) and Batty (2013) for examples of such operation, indeed. Remaining on the same topic, contending that topical studies largely ignore the role of the IoT and related big data applications in improving environmental sustainability in the context of smart sustainable cities, Bibri (2018b) reviews and synthesizes the relevant literature with the objective of identifying the state-of-the-art sensor-based big data applications enabled by the IoT for environmental sustainability and related data processing platforms and computing models, and further explores the opportunity of augmenting the informational landscape of sustainable urban forms with big data applications to achieve the required level of environmental sustainability. To extend this work, while maintaining this time that topical studies tend to deal mostly with data-driven smart urbanism while barely exploring how this approach can improve and advance sustainable urbanism under what is labeled “data-driven smart sustainable cities,” Bibri (2019c) examines how data-driven smart sustainable cities are being instrumented, datafied, and computerized so as to improve, advance, and maintain their contribution to the goals of sustainable development through more enhanced urban practices and optimized urban processes; proposes, illustrates, and describes a novel architecture and typology of data-driven smart sustainable cities; and highlights and substantiates the great potential of big data technology for enabling such contribution by identifying, synthesizing, distilling, and enumerating the key practical and analytical applications of this advanced technology in relation to multiple urban systems and domains. These specifically include—with respect to operations, functions, services, designs, strategies, and policies—transport and traffic, mobility, energy, power grid, environment, buildings, infrastructures, urban planning, urban design, governance, healthcare, education, public safety, and academic and scientific research. The author argues that smart sustainable

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

cities are becoming knowable, controllable, and tractable in new dynamic ways thanks to urban science, responsive to the data generated about their systems and domains by reacting to the analytical outcome of many aspects of urbanity in terms of optimizing and enhancing operational functioning, management, planning, design, development, and governance in line with the goals of sustainable development.

2.4.6.3 The Role and Potential of Big Data Technology for the Compact City: Planning, Design, and Operational Functioning The link between big data technology and the compact city pertains to the contribution of the former to enhancing and advancing the planning and design approaches and monitoring and optimizing the operational functioning of the latter. Table 2.5 attempts to capture the core of this link. 2.4.6.4 Discussion of Issues Related to Science, Technology, and Society Visions of future advances in science and technology (S&T), predominately computing and ICT, inevitably bring with them wide-ranging common visions on how societies, and thus cities as social organizations, will evolve in the future as well as the immense opportunities this future will bring (Bibri 2019f; Bibri and Krogstie 2016). This relates to the role of science-based technology in modern society in terms of its progress, a half-a-century debate within which the assumptions and claims made in the preceding discussion are positioned. The focus here is on the role of big data science and analytics and the underpinning technologies in advancing sustainability in modern cities. This form of S&T has recently permeated contemporary urban debates, policy, and politics in the sphere of smart sustainable urbanism. As a new area of S&T, big data science and analytics embodies an unprecedentedly transformative power—which is manifested not only in the form of revolutionizing science and transforming knowledge, but also in advancing social practices, catalyzing major shifts, and fostering societal transitions (Bibri 2019e). Of particular relevance, it is instigating a massive change in the way both sustainable cities and smart cities are studied, understood, planned, designed, managed, and governed (Bibri 2019a, d, e; Kitchin 2014, 2015, 2016) so as to improve, advance, and maintain their contribution to the goals of sustainable development in the face of the expanding urbanization. This relates to what has been dubbed data-driven smart sustainable urbanism, a new era which is presently unfolding, wherein smart sustainable urban practices and processes are becoming highly responsive to a form of data-driven urbanism. “At the heart of data-driven urbanism is a computational understanding of city systems that reduces urban life to logic and calculative rules and

2.4 A Thorough Analysis, Evaluation, and Discussion … Table 2.5 The role and potential of big data technology for the compact city

31

The role and potential of big data technology for the compact city Planning • Enabling joined-up planning, a form of integration and coordination that allows system-wide effects of sustainability to be tracked, understood, analyzed, and built into the very designs and responses characterizing the operations and functions of the compact city, i.e., spatial patterns of physical objects, infrastructure, activities, and services as embedded in space and time • Extensive interactions across many scales of the compact city as ICT is essentially network-based given its ubiquitous and constitutive nature. Data-driven approaches to integrating city systems, coordinating city domains, and coupling city networks are essential to efficient land-use planning and development, resource optimization, and cost reduction • The provision of urban data from the functions associated with compact city designs offers the opportunity for a continuously integrated view or synoptic intelligence pertaining to the effects of the way the compact city is functioning in real time. Datasets imply, in addition to showing immediately such functioning, how long term changes can be detected • Aggregating real-time data to deal with changes in the compact city at any scale and over any time period. They can be used to make the compact city more sustainable over different spatial and temporal scales, yielding opportunities for solving complex problems • Planning across multiple time scales in order to increase the contribution of the compact city to the goals of sustainable development in the long term by continuous reflection on the short term. Short-termism in compact city planning is about measuring, evaluating, modeling, and simulating what takes place in the city over hours, days, or months instead of years or decades. In this context, big data can be used to derive new theories of how the compact city functions in ways that focus on much shorter term issues than hitherto, and much more on mobility and movement than on the long-term functioning of the compact city as a complex system • Continuous planning as data constantly flood from urban systems and domains and are updated in real time, thereby allowing for a dynamic conception of the planning, instead of a static conception of the planning, of the compact city. This implies conceiving the compact city in terms of processual outcomes of urbanization as regards building and living processes, as well as consumption and production levels, rather than conceiving it in terms of form • Weaving urban intelligence and planning functions into the fabric of the institutions of the compact city whose mandate is making urban living more environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable • Urban intelligence functions enable new approaches into how the compact city functions and utilizes and integrates complexity science, urban science, and big data science in fashioning new powerful forms of urban simulations models and optimization and prediction methods that can generate city structures and forms that improve sustainability, efficiency, equity, and the quality of life for citizenry • Maximizing the use of data to encourage the compact city developers to adopt a more consistent approach to deploying digital infrastructure to future proof new developments and transformations associated with urban intensification as a major strategy of compactness Design • Using advanced simulation models for assessing and optimizing the designs of the compact city in terms of scalability and flexibility in ways that respond to urban growth, environmental pressures, changes in socio-economic needs, and discontinuities • The real-time compact city and its ubiquitous sensing providing information about longer term changes enables constructing urban simulation models to inform future designs thanks to the disaggregate models. This involves exploring many different kinds of models that extend complexity science and advance urban science as informed by big data science and analytics. This is of significance to understanding and dealing with the wicked problems the compact city inherently embodies • Providing effective ways to identify the macroscopic observables and control parameters that influence individual decisions in the compact city, and then integrating them in agent-based simulation models based on the large number and variety of trajectories of citizens in different locations • Monitoring, analyzing, and evaluating the environmental, economic, and social performance of the design strategies of the compact city as regards the extent to which they contribute to the goals of sustainable development based on different scenarios and situations • Effective analysis and deep understanding of the relationship between individual and collective mobility and the environmental, economic, and social effects that are assumed to be produced by the design strategies of the compact city • Enhancing the performance of the design strategies of the compact city through augmenting them with data-driven technology solutions, or improving their integration in relation to multiple spatial scales as outcomes of processes enabled by ICT • Predicting socio-economic and demographic changes and devising more integrated design strategies as to the urban and technological components of the compact city (continued)

32

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

Table 2.5 (continued) The role and potential of big data technology for the compact city Operational Functioning • Developing intelligence functions in the form of urban operating and innovation centers based on how the compact city is performing and changing its nature in light of its real-time operational functioning • The linking and integration of diverse forms of urban data from various urban domains provide a more holistic analysis, which in turn makes it possible to control, manage, and regulate urban life by analyzing, harnessing, and translating contextual and actionable data into more efficient operational functioning processes • Relating the compact city spatial organizations, spatial scales, and infrastructures to their operational functioning through control, automation, optimization, and management • Improving participation, equity, fairness, safety, and accessibility, as well as service delivery in relation to the quality of life. These are associated with attractiveness enabled by multidimensional mixed land use • Enhancing and optimizing the transport of energy, water, materials, products, and people already minimized by compactness • Calculating and analyzing the costs and environmental impacts of the transportation choices of people, combining all modes of transit. Equipping public transport with GPS sensors to monitor movement • Addressing equity and inclusion issues in urban transport using smartphone apps and thus creating socially sustainable urban transport • Enhancing transportation system efficiency by influencing personal travel behavior decisions using advanced platforms and smartphone apps. Use of information on passengers traveling for planning of new routes and road infrastructure • Providing visibility into transit system performance based on cloud-based solution, and helping the compact city makes better decisions about transportation by combining the IoT-based generated big data and spatial analytics • Managing mobility in public transport in terms of keeping the interaction between businesses, universities, and citizens as to how they should make the choice of travel modes for everyday needs and what can be done to make travel behavior more sustainable • Managing all services of the transport complex of the compact city on the basis of data received by the situation center • The collection and analysis of information on the movement of citizens on transport maps operators to determine the necessity of the launch of new public transport routes • The use of a smart traffic light system for determining the movement of priorities of different types of transport

procedures, which is underpinned by a…realist epistemology. This epistemology is informed by and sustains urban science…, which seeks to make cities more knowable and controllable” (Kitchin 2016, p. 2). However, as there is a little understanding about how data-driven smart sustainable urbanism has emerged and why it has become institutionalized and interwoven with politics and policy—urban dissemination, Bibri (2019f) has recently conducted a study in science, technology, and society (STS), where he examines the intertwined societal factors underlying its materialization, success, expansion, and evolution, and further critically discusses urban science and big data technology as social constructions in terms of their inherent flaws, limits, and biases. The author concludes that data-driven smart sustainable urbanism is shaped by socio-cultural and politico-institutional structures, and will prevail for many years to come given the underlying transformational power of big data science and analytics, coupled with its legitimation capacity associated with the scientific discourse as the ultimate form of rational thought and the basis for legitimacy in

knowledge-making and policymaking. However, as the author asserts, there is a need for re-casting urban science in ways that reconfigure the underlying epistemology to recognize the complex and dynamic nature of smart sustainable cities, as well as for re-casting them in ways that re-orientate in how they are conceived. Furthermore, big data science and analytics as a form of S&T and its role in advancing sustainable urbanism has been questioned and criticized by several scholars, often exposing the risks and drawbacks of the so-called techno-scientific achievements. In general, Huesemann and Huesemann (2011) demonstrate that technological optimism is grounded in ignorance, leading to uncritical acceptance and adoption of new technologies. In particular, Cowley (2016) contends that smart city and eco-city visions and plans are often criticized for paying insufficient attention to the social and political dimensions of real urban space, pointing to an underlying utopianism. On this critical view, the author adds, not only are such visions and plans unable to live up to their own utopian promises, but also even covertly reproduce

2.4 A Thorough Analysis, Evaluation, and Discussion … Table 2.6 Computational, analytical, technical, and logistic challenges

33

Computational, analytical, technical, and logistic challenges • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Design science and engineering constraints Data processing and analysis Data management in dynamic and volatile environments Data sources and characteristics Database integration across urban domains Data sharing between city stakeholders Data uncertainty and incompleteness Data accuracy and veracity (quality) Data protection and technical integration Data governance Urban growth and data growth Cost and large-scale deployment Urban intelligence functions and related simulation models and optimization and prediction methods as part of exploring the notion of smart sustainable cities as innovation labs • Building and maintaining data-driven city operations centers or citywide instrumented system • Relating the urban infrastructure to its operational functioning and planning through control, automation, management, optimization, and enhancement • Creating technologies that ensure fairness, equity, inclusion, and participation • Balancing the efficiency of solutions and the quality of life against environmental and equity considerations

the structural conditions of unsustainability. To elaborate further on this, “it seems tempting to advocate that critics should seek to debunk this [utopian] rhetoric, in order to reveal the contingent political and economic agendas which it conceals. Thinking actively about the SF [science fiction] dimensions of the smart eco-city may, in other words, be one way of allowing more fundamental questions to surface, related to its ability to deliver more than unsustainable business as usual” (Cowley 2016, p. 11). With respect to the social and political consequences, Kitchin (2014) provides a critical reflection on the implications of data-driven smart urbanism, examining five emerging concerns: the politics of big urban data; technocratic governance and city development; corporatization of city governance and technological lock-ins; buggy, brittle, and hack-able cities; and the panoptic city. A large part of this examination constitutes also the aim of Kitchin’s (2015) paper, which indeed provides a critical overview of data-driven, networked urbanism, focusing in particular on the relationship between data and the city, and critically examines a number of urban data issues, including corporatization, ownership, control, privacy and security, anticipatory governance, and challenges. In addition, Kitchin (2016) examines the forms, practices, and ethics of smart urbanism and urban science, paying particular attention to privacy, dataveillance and geosurveillance; and data uses, such as social sorting and anticipatory governance, among others. Besides, the rising demand for big data computing and the underlying enabling technologies, coupled with the growing awareness of the associated potential to transform the way smart sustainable cities can function with respect to planning and development, comes with major challenges

related to the design, engineering, development, implementation, and maintenance of data-driven applications. The challenges are mostly computational, analytical, and technical in nature, and sometimes logistic in terms of the detailed organization and implementation of the complex technical operations involving the installation and deployment of the big data ecosystem and its components. They include, but are not limited to, the following, as compiled and distilled in Table 2.6 from Bibri (2019b). Adding to the above primarily technological challenges are the financial, organizational, institutional, cultural, regulatory, and ethical ones, which are associated with the implementation, retention, and dissemination of big data across urban domains. As an example, ethical controversies over the benefits of big data analytics and its applications involve limited access and related digital divides and other concerns about accessibility.

2.5

Conclusion

Compact city planning and development has long been the preferred response to the challenges of sustainable development. Much of the discourse about the compact city constructs it as a model that secures environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially beneficial development through dense, intense, diverse, and mixed use patterns that rely on sustainable transportation and promote green space. Therefore, European and global policies on urban planning and development promote the concept of the compact city as a response to environmental integration, economic development, and social justice, as well as attractiveness.

34

This chapter provided a comprehensive state–of–the–art review of compact urbanism as a set of planning and development practices and strategies, focusing on the three dimensions of sustainability and the significant, yet untapped, potential of big data technology for enhancing such practices and strategies under what is labelled “data–driven smart sustainable urbanism.” This chapter identified compactness, density, diversity, mixed land use, sustainable transportation, and green space as the dominant design principles and strategies underlying the compact city as applied and pursued in urban planning and development. At the core of the compact city is, as this chapter demonstrated, the clear synergy between the underlying principles and strategies in terms of their cooperation to produce combined effects greater than the sum of their separate effects with respect to the benefits of sustainability as to its tripartite composition. Indeed, they are not mutually exclusive and thus must take place or exist at the same time in order to guarantee the viability and sustain the performance of the compact city regarding its contribution to the three goals of sustainable development. For example, urban greening enhances the presence of the compact city ideas in the urban areas that are targeted by development strategies (Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020). Also, the availability and quality of the public transport infrastructure is a determinant factor for stimulating urban development projects and initiatives pertaining to compactness in the nodes and built-up areas so as to boost the benefits of sustainability (Bibri, Krogstie and Kärrholm 2020 Hofstad 2012). In general, urban planning and development policies are supported by the proponents of the agglomeration effects (Glaeser 2011) rendered by the proximity and connectivity of diverse urban components, leading to density, diversity, and mixed land use (Lim and Gain 2016) that must rest on sustainable transportation (Dempsey 2010a, b; Jenks and Jones 2010). Furthermore, this chapter corroborated that the compact city as a set of planning and development practices and strategies is justified by its ability to contribute to the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainable development. Compact cities are endorsed as a response to critical environmental, economic, and social challenges by turning cities more efficient, equitable, livable, vibrant, and attractive. To put it differently, agglomeration, proximity, and diversity have been demonstrated to promote environmental quality, social equity, accessibility, life quality, innovation, economic viability, and rural land and natural area protection. However, the economic goals seem to dominate over the environmental and social goals, notwithstanding the general claim about the three dimensions of sustainability being equally important and mutually dependent. The main issues identified in this regard include socio-economic segregation, social inequity, noise pollution, and green space loss. Compact cities involve

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

tensions and dilemmas when attempting to balance between the goals of sustainable development. This continues to stimulate more endeavors toward finding more effective ways to enhance and advance this advocated urban model. The conflicting and contentious issues pertaining to the compact city model arguably relate more or less to the debate between the “decentrists,” who are in favor of a decentralized form, and the “centrists,” who are in favor of a high-density compact form. Of particular relevance in this respect, the decentrists are skeptical on the environmental benefits delivered by the strategy; claim that the expected energy reduction is modest compared to the discomfort caused by the necessary rigorous policies; and believe that it is impossible to halt the urban decentralization phenomenon that fits the attitudes of the major part of the population. In addition, those issues are still largely associated with the whereabouts of the compact city as to its implementation and development, and what types of planning approaches are adopted to promote dense and diverse urban patterns. In addition, with its several dimensions working together synergistically, the compact city is a very complex urban model. This explains the kind of the wicked problems it embodies in terms of urban planning and development, which in turn justifies the kind of problems, issues, and challenges it is associated with. This pertains mostly to the question of how sustainable urban forms should be monitored, understood, analyzed, and thus planned and designed so as to improve, advance, and maintain their contribution to the goals of sustainable development. This brings us to the issue of sustainable cities and smart cities being extremely fragmented as landscapes and weakly connected as approaches to urbanism, despite the proven role of advanced ICT and the tremendous, untapped potential of big data science and analytics and the underpinning technologies for advancing sustainability under what is labeled “smart sustainable cities.” Indeed, big data technologies have become essential to the functioning of both smart cities and sustainable cities. Consequently, related practices and processes are becoming highly responsive to a form of data-driven urbanism. In more detail, “we are moving into an era where instrumentation, datafication, and computerization are routinely pervading the very fabric of cities, coupled with the… integration and coordination of their systems and domains. As a result, vast troves of data are generated, harnessed, analyzed, and exploited to control, manage, organize, and regulate urban life… This data-driven approach to urbanism is increasingly becoming the mode of production for smart sustainable cities” (Bibri 2019c, p. 1). Of more relevance, a new era is presently unfolding wherein sustainable urbanism is increasingly becoming data-driven smart. Huge advances in some areas of knowledge have been achieved and a multitude of exemplary practical initiatives have been realized in the realm of sustainable urbanism,

2.5 Conclusion

thereby raising the profile of sustainable urban forms worldwide. The change is still inspiring and the challenge continues to induce scholars and practitioners to further enhance the compact city model as regards design practices, as well as to integrate it with other models of sustainable urban form given their common goal of, and clear synergy in, contributing to sustainable development. As concluded by Jabareen (2006, p. 48), “different planners and scholars may develop different combinations of design concepts to achieve sustainable development goals… However, all should be forms that environmentally contribute beneficially to the planet for the present and future generations.” In that respect, more in-depth knowledge on planning practices is needed to capture the vision of sustainable urban development, so too is a deeper understanding of the multi-faceted processes of change to achieve sustainable urban forms. This entails conceptualizing multiple pathways toward attaining this vision and developing a deeper understanding of the interplay between social and technical solutions for sustainable urban forms (Williams 2010), notably those involving engineering and applied sciences related to big data science and analytics. The novelty of this work lies fore and foremost in its unique approach to the literature review in terms of the link between compact urbanism and data-driven smart urbanism—based on a holistic perspective on sustainability. This is in response to the growing need for an inclusive analysis or a multi-perspectival approach to the study of the phenomenon of the compact city in the era of big data revolution and urbanization. In this respect, this chapter uses a compelling cross-disciplinary integration entailing a variety of theoretical, applied, scientific, and technological perspectives drawn from urban planning, sustainable development, urban science, data science, complexity science, socio-technical studies, policy, philosophy, ecology, and sociology. Much of the broader literature carried out on compact urbanism focuses on the planning practices, design principles, and development strategies of the compact city in relation to one of the three dimensions of sustainability. No single work has, to the best of one’s knowledge, addressed compact urbanism in relation to data-driven smart urbanism in terms of their untapped synergistic potential for advancing sustainability. Concerning the value of this review, it resides in enabling researchers and scholars to focus their work on the identified real-world problems, issues, and challenges pertaining to the compact city, in particular, and to the sustainable city, in general, as well as on the existing knowledge gaps in the field of sustainable urbanism. Such focus entails exploring new research opportunities to enhance and advance the practices and processes of ecological urbanism and sustainable urbanism through particularly big data technologies and their novel applications. Practitioners and experts can

35

make use of the outcome to identify the common weaknesses of the compact city as a model of sustainable urbanism and to find more effective ways to solve them in light of the emerging paradigm of data-driven smart sustainable urbanism. In view of that, this thorough review provides a valuable reference for researchers and practitioners in related communities and the necessary material to inform these communities of the latest developments in the area of compact city planning, design, and development and its relation to data-driven smart sustainable urbanism. We hope that this chapter will provide the grounding for further in-depth research on the compact city as the leading paradigm of sustainable urbanism, especially in relation to its data-driven smart dimension. We would like particularly to encourage applied theoretical and empirical investigations to illuminate the design principles, planning practices, and development strategies underlying the compact city model and the assumptions behind related initiatives. And hence the claims that this model can make urban living more sustainable and the role of advanced ICT in achieving this goal. The rationale for this is that as the demand for applied theoretical and practical ideas about how to achieve the required or optimal level of sustainability through compact urbanism or sustainable urbanism processes and practices increases, these initiatives are likely to get increasing attention from policymakers and practitioners around the world. Further research should focus on providing the knowledge that these actors will need to make informed decisions about how to achieve the status and thus objectives of the compact city toward achieving a sustainable city. In addition, this chapter stimulates further discussion to debate over the disruptive, synergetic, and transformational effects of big data science and analytics and the underpinning technologies on forms of the planning, design, and development of sustainable cities, as well as more in-depth research focused on establishing, uncovering, substantiating, challenging, and/or questioning the assumptions behind the relevance and real potential of advanced ICT as to advancing sustainability.

References Alberti, M. (2000). Urban form and ecosystem dynamics: Empirical evidence and practical implications’. In K. Williams, E. Burton, & M. Jenks (Eds.), Achieving sustainable urban form (pp. 84–96). London: E & FN Spon. Al Nuaimi, E., Al Neyadi, H., Nader, M., & Al–Jaroodi, J. (2015). Applications of big data to smart cities. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 6(25), 1–15. Angelidou, M., Artemis, P., Nicos, K., Christina, K., Tsarchopoulos, P., & Anastasia, P. (2017). Enhancing sustainable urban development through smart city applications. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 1–25.

36 Arbury, J. (2005). ‘From urban sprawl to compact city—An analysis of urban growth management in Auckland’, p. 175. http://portal. jarbury.net/thesis.pdf. Aseem, I. (2013). Designing urban transformation. New York, London: Routledge. Batty, M. (2013). Big data, smart cities and city planning. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(3), 274–279. Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., et al. (2012). Smart cities of the future. European Physical Journal, 214, 481–518. Beatley, T. (2000). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Bertaud, A. (2001). ‘Metropolis: A measure of the spatial organization of 7 large cities’ (pp. 1–22). http://Alainbertaud.Com/; https://doi. org/10.1017/s037689291300012x. Bettencourt, L. M. A. (2014). The uses of big data in cities. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Bibri, S. E. (2018a). Smart sustainable cities of the future: the untapped potential of big data analytics and context aware computing for advancing sustainability. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Bibri, S. E. (2018b). The IoT for smart sustainable cities of the future: An analytical framework for sensor–based big data applications for environmental sustainability. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 230–253. Bibri, S. E. (2019a). Big data science and analytics for smart sustainable urbanism: unprecedented paradigmatic shifts and practical advancements. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Bibri, S. E. (2019b). On the sustainability of smart and smarter cities in the era of big data: An interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary literature review. Journal of Big Data, 6(25), 2–64. Bibri, S. E. (2019c). The anatomy of the data–driven smart sustainable city: instrumentation, datafication, computerization and related applications. Journal of Big Data, 6, 59. Bibri, S. E. (2019d). Advances in smart sustainable urbanism: Data– driven and data–intensive scientific approaches to wicked problems. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on Smart City Applications, ACM, Oct 2–4, Casablanca, Morocco. Bibri, S. E. (2019e). The sciences underlying smart sustainable urbanism: Unprecedented paradigmatic and scholarly shifts in light of big data science and analytics. Smart Cities, 2(2), 179–213. Bibri, S. E. (2019f). Data-driven smart sustainable urbanism: The intertwined societal factors underlying its materialization. Success, Expansion, and Evolution Geojournal. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10708-019-10061-x. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2016). On the social shaping dimensions of smart sustainable cities: A study in science, technology, and society. Sustainable Cities and Society, 29, 219–246. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017a). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 183–212. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017b). ICT of the new wave of computing for sustainable urban forms: Their big data and context–aware augmented typologies and design concepts. Sustainable Cities and Society, 32, 449–474. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017c). The core enabling technologies of big data analytics and context–aware computing for smart sustainable cities: a review and synthesis. Journal of Big Data, 4(38), 1–50. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2018). The big data deluge for transforming the knowledge of smart sustainable cities: a data mining framework for urban analytics. In Proceedings of the 3D Annual International Conference on Smart City Applications, ACM, 11–12 Oct, Tetouan, Morocco.

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2019a). A scholarly backcasting approach to a novel model for smart sustainable cities of the future: Strategic problem orientation city, Territory, and Architecture, 6(3), 1–27. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2019b). Generating a vision for smart sustainable cities of the future: A scholarly backcasting approach. European Journal of Futures Research, 7(5), 1–20. Bibri, S.E., Krogstie, J., & Kärrholm, M. J. (2020). Compact city planning and development: Emerging practices and strategies for sustainable development goals, Developments in Built Environment (in press). Bibri, S. E., Krogstie, J., & Gouttaya, N. (2020). Big data science and analytics for tackling smart sustainable urbanism complexities. In M. Ben Ahmed, A. Boudhir, D. Santos, M. El Aroussi, İ. Karas (Eds.), Innovations in Smart Cities Applications Edition 3. SCA 2019. Lecture Notes in Intelligent Transportation and Infrastructure. Springer, Cham. Bifulco, F., Tregua, M., Amitrano, C. C., & D’Auria, A. (2016). ICT and sustainability in smart cities management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), 132–147. Boeing, G., Church, D., Hubbard, H., Mickens, J., & Rudis, L. (2014). LEED–ND and livability revisited. Berkeley Planning Journal, 27 (1), 31–55. Boussauw, K., et al. (2012). Relationship between spatial proximity and travel–to–work distance: The effect of the compact city. Regional Studies, 46(6). Bramley, G., & Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(1), 30–48. Breheny, M. (Ed.). (1992). Sustainable development and urban form. London: Pion. Breheny, M. (1995). The compact city and transport energy consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20(1), 81–101. Breheny, M. (1996). Centrists, decentrists and compromisers: View on the future of urban form. In M. Jenks, E. Burton, & K. Williams (Eds.). The compact city—A sustainable urban form?. London: E & FN Spoon. Breheny, M. J. (1997). Urban compaction: Feasible and acceptable? Cities, 14(4), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(97) 00005-X. Burton, E. (2000). The compact city: Just or just compact? A preliminary analysis. Urban Studies, 37(11), 1969–2001. Burton, E. (2001). The compact city and social justice, a paper presented to the housing studies association spring conference. Housing, Environment and Sustainability, University of York. Burton, E. (2002). Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29, 219–250. CEC. (1990). Green paper on the urban environment—Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament, Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Brussels. Commission of the European communities. (2011). Cities of tomorrow: Challenges, visions, ways forward. Lux- embourg: Publications Office of the European Office. Churchman, A. (1999). Disentangling the concept of density. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(4), 389–411. Cowley, R. (2016). Science fiction and the smart eco–city. The society for the history of technology annual meeting. Singapore, 22–26. Dempsey, N. (2010a). Revisiting the compact city? Built Environment, 36(1), 5–8. Dempsey, N., et al. (2010). Elements of urban form, in Dimensions of the Sustainable City (pp. 21–52).

References Dempsey, N., & Jenks, M. (2010). The future of the compact city. Built Environment, 36(1), 116–121. Dantzing, G. B., & Saaty, T. L. (1973). Compact city: A plan for a livable urban environment. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. De Roo, G. (2000). Environmental conflicts in compact cities: Complexity, decision—Making, and policy approaches. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27, 151–162. De Vries, S., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2002). Natural environments—Healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environment and Planning A, 35, 1717–1731. Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The politics of the earth. Environmental discourses (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dumreicher, H., Levine, R. S., Yanarella, E. J. (2000). The appropriate scale for “low energy”: Theory and practice at the Westbahnhof. In: K. Steemers, S. Yannas (Eds.), Architecture, City, Environment, Proceedings of PLEA 2000 (pp. 359–363). London: James & James. Durack, R. (2001). Village vices: The contradiction of new urbanism and sustainability. Places, 14(2), 64–69. Easthope, H., & Randolph, B. (2009). Governing the compact city: The challenges of apartment living in Sydney, Australia. Housing Studies, 24(2), 243–259. Frey, H. (1999). Designing the city: Towards a more sustainable urban form. London: E & FN Spon. Girardet, H., & Schumacher, S. (1999). Creating sustainable cities. Dartington, England: Green Books for The Schumacher Society. Glaeser, E. L. (2011). The triumph of the city: How our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. New York: Penguin Press. Handy, S. (1996). Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behavior. Transportation Research Transport and Environment, 2(2), 151–165. Handy, S. L., Boarnet, M. G., Ewing, R., & Killingsworth, R. E. (2002). How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23 (2S), 64–73. Harvey, F. (2011). Green vision: The search for the ideal eco–city. London: Financ Times. Healey, P. (2002). On creating the ‘City’ as a collective resource. Urban Studies, 39(10), 1777–1792. Heinonen, J., & Junnila, S. (2011). Implications of urban structure on carbon consumption in metropolitan areas. Environmental Research Letters, 6(1), 014018. Hofstad, H. (2012). Compact city development: High ideals and emerging practices. European Journal of Spatial Planning, 1–23. Höjer, M., & Wangel, S. (2015). Smart sustainable cities: Definition and challenges. In L. Hilty & B. Aebischer B (Eds.), ICT innovations for sustainability (pp. 333–349). Berlin: Springer. Huesemann, M. H., & Huesemann, J. A. (2011). Technofix: Why technology won’t save us or the environment. New Society Publishers. Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 38–52. Jenks, M. (2000). The acceptability of urban intensification. In K. Williams, E. Burton, & M. Jenks (Eds.), Achieving sustainable urban form. London: E & FN Spon. Jenks, M., Burton, E., & Williams, K. (1996a). A sustainable future through the compact city? Urban intensification in the United Kingdom. Environment by Design, 1(1), 5–20. Jenks, M., Burton, E., & Williams, K. (Eds.). (1996b). The compact city: A sustainable urban form?. London: E & FN Spon Press. Jenks, M., & Dempsey, N. (2005). Future forms and design for sustainable cities. Oxford: Elsevier.

37 Jenks, M., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2010). Dimensions of the sustainable city (Vol. 2). London: Springer. Jones, C., & Macdonald, C. (2004). Sustainable urban form and real estate markets. In European Real Estate Conference, Milan (pp. 2–5). Jordan, D., & Horan, T. (1997). Intelligent transportation systems and sustainable communities findings of a national study. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 76th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 12–16 January. Kärrholm, M. (2011). The scaling of sustainable urban form: Some scale—Related problems in the context of a Swedish urban landscape. European Planning Studies, 19(1), 97–112. Kearney, A. R. (2006). Residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfaction: Impacts of density and nearby nature. Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 112–139. Kitchin, R. (2014). The real–time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79, 1–14. Kitchin, R. (2015). Data–driven, networked urbanism. The programmable city working paper, Maynooth University, County Kildare, Ireland. Kitchin, R. (2016). The ethics of smart cities and urban science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374, 1–15. Kotharkar, R., Bahadure, P. N., & Vyas, A. (2014). Compact city concept: Its relevance and applicability for planning of Indian cities. In 28th International PLEA Conference (November). Kramers, A., Wangel, J., & Höjer, M. (2016). Governing the smart sustainable city: The case of the Stockholm Royal Seaport. In Proceedings of ICT for sustainability 2016 (Vol. 46, pp. 99–108). Atlantis Press, Amsterdam. Kramers, A., Höjer, M., Lövehagen, N., & Wangel, J. (2014). Smart sustainable cities: Exploring ICT solutions for reduced energy use in cities. Environmental Modelling and Software, 56, 52–62. Larice, M., & MacDonald, E. (Eds.). (2007). The urban design reader. New York, London: Routledge. Lau, S. S. Y., Wang, J. & Giridharan, R. (2002). ‘Smart and Sustainable City – a Case Study From Hong Kong’, (October 2015), 1–8. Laurian, L., Crawford, J., Day, M., Kouwenhoven, P., Mason, G., Ericksen N., & Beattie, L. (2010). Evaluating the outcomes of plans: Theory, practice, and methodology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 740–757. Lee, J., Kurisu, K., An, K., & Hanaki, K. (2015). Development of the compact city index and its application to Japanese cities. Urban Studies, 52(6), 1054–1070. Leffers, D. (2015). Urban sustainability as a “boundary object”: Interrogating discourses of urban intensification in Ottawa, Canada. In C. Isenhour, G. McDonogh, & M. Checker (Eds.), Sustainability in the global city: Myth and practice (pp. 329–349). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Li, L. W., & Yue, H. Y. (2016). Planning low carbon communities: Why is a self–sustaining energy management system indispensable? Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 11(4), 371–376. Lim, H. K., & Kain, J.-H. (2016). Compact cities are complex, intense and diverse but: Can we design such emergent urban properties? Urban Planning, 1(1), 95. Lin, J. & Yang, A. (2006). Does the compact–city paradigm foster sustainability? An empirical study in Taiwan, Environment and Planning B. Planning and Design, 33, 365–380. Lozano, E. E. (1990). Community design and the culture of cities: The crossroad and the wall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S., & Spreeuwenburg, P. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: How

38 strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiol Community Health, 60, 587–592. Manaugh, K., & Kreider, T. (2013). What is mixed use? Presenting an interaction method for measuring land use mix. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 6(1), 63–72. Marcotullio, P. J. (2007). Towards sustainable cities: East Asian, North American and European perspectives on managing urban regions. New York: Routledge. Mace, A., Gallent, N., & Madeddu, M. (2010). Internal housing space: By regulation or negotiation? In Conference paper AESOP 24th Congress of the Association of European Schools of Planning, Space is Luxury, 7–10 July 2010, Aalto University School of Science and Technology, Finland. Mindali, O., Raveh, A., & Salomon, I. (2004). Urban density and energy consumption: A new look at old statistics. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38(2), 143–162. Muraca, B., & Voget-Kleschin, L. (2011). Strong sustainability across culture(s). In G. Banse, G. L. Nelson, & O. Parodi (Eds.), Sustainable development—The cultural perspective: Concepts, aspects, examples (pp. 187–201). Berlin: Edition Sigma. Næss, P., Strand, A., Næss, T., & Nicolaysen, M. (2011). On their road to sustainability? The challenge of sustainable mobility in urban planning and development in two Scandinavian capital regions’. Town Planning Review, 82(3), 287–315. Næss, P., Strand, A., Næss, T., & Nicolaysen, M. (2013). On their road to sustainability? The challenge of sustainable mobility in urban planning and development in two Scandinavian capital regions, Town Planning Review, 82(3), 287–315. Nabielek, K. (2012). The compact city: Planning strategies, recent developments and future prospects in the Netherlands’. Association of European Schools on Planning (AESOP) 26th Annual Congress (July), p. 11. Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, 11–26. Newman, P., & Jennings, I. (2008). Cities as sustainable ecosystems. Principles and Practices. London: Island Press. Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and city. Overcoming automobile dependence. Island press, Washington D.C. Nigel, T. (2007). Urban planning theory since 1945. London: Sage. Nikitin, K., Lantsev, N., Nugaev, A., & Yakovleva, A. (2016). Data– driven cities: From concept to applied solutions. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). http://docplayer.net/50140321-From-conceptto-applied-solutions-data-driven-cities.html. OECD. (2012a). Green growth studies, compact city policies: A comparative assessment. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2012b). Compact city policies: A comparative assessment. OECD. OECD green growth studies (pp. 123–158). https://doi.org/ 10.1787/9789264167865-en. Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in urban planning: Advances and prospects. Journal of Planning Literature, 24(4), 343–361. Pantelis, K., & Aija, L. (2013). Understanding the value of (big) data. In IEEE International Conference on IEEE Big Data 2013 (pp. 38–42). Portney, K. E. (2002). Taking sustainable cities seriously: A comparative analysis of twenty–four US cities. Local Environment, 7(4), 363–380. Portugali, J., & Alfasi, N. (2008). An approach to planning discourse analysis. Urban Studies, 45(2), 251–272. Quigley, J. M. (1998). Urban diversity and economic growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), 127–138.

2

The Compact City Paradigm and its Centrality …

Raman, S. (2009). Designing a liveable compact city—physical forms of city and social life in urban neighbourhoods. Built Environment, 36(1), 63–80. Rittel, H. W. J. (1969). Panel on policy sciences. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 4, 155. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. Roof, K., & Oleru, N. (2008). Public health: Seattle and King County’s push for the built environment. Journal of Environmental Health, 75, 24–27. Roseland, M. (1997). Dimensions of the eco–city. Cities, 14(4), 197– 202. Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Song, Y., & Knaap, G. (2004). Measuring urban form. Journal of American Planning Association, 70(2), 210–225. ISSN: 1387– 3679. Suzuki, H., et al. (2010). Eco2 cities ecological cities as economic cities. The World Bank. Shahrokni, H., Årman, L., Lazarevic, D., Nilsson, A., & Brandt, N. (2015). Implementing smart urban metabolism in the Stockholm Royal Seaport: Smart city SRS. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19 (5), 917–929. Swanwick, C., Dunnett, N., & Woolley, H. (2003). Nature, role and value of green space in towns and cities: An overview. Built Environment, 29(2), 94–106. Thomas, R. (2003). Building design. In T. Randall & M. Fordham (Eds.), Sustainable urban design: an environmental approach (pp. 46–88). London: Spon Press. Townsend, A. (2013). Smart cities–big data, civic hackers and the quest for a new utopia. New York: Norton & Company. UN Habitat. (2011). The economic role of cities. United Nations Human Settlements Programme 2011. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. UN Habitat. (2014a). A new strategy of sustainable neighbourhood planning: Five principles. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. UN Habitat. (2014b). The economics of urban form: A literature review. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme 2014. UN Habitat. (2014c). Urban patterns for a green economy leveraging density. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. UN Habitat. (2015). Issue paper on urban and spatial planning and design. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme 2015. Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Moore, K. (2005). The results of making a city more compact: neighbours’ interpretation of urban infill. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32, 715–733. Van, U.-P., & Senior, M. (2000). The contribution of mixed land uses to sustainable travel in cities. In K. Williams, E. Burton, & M. Jenks (Eds.), Achieving sustainable urban form (pp. 139–148). London: E & FN Spon. Van Bueren, E., van Bohemen, H., Itard, L., & Visscher, H. (2011). Sustainable urban environments: An ecosystem approach. New York: Springer International Publishing. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13–23. Wheeler, S. M., & Beatley, T. (Eds.). (2010). The sustainable urban development reader. London, New York: Routledge.

References Whitehead, M. (2003). (Re)analysing the sustainable city: Nature, urbanism and the regulation of socio-environmental relations in the UK. Urban Studies, 40(7), 1183–1206. Williams, K. (2009a). Sustainable cities: Research and practice challenges. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 1(1), 128–132.

39 Williams, K. (2009b). Sustainable cities: Research and practice challenges. Int J Urban Sustain Dev, 1(1), 128–132. Williams, K. (2010). Sustainable cities: research and practice challenges. Int J Urban Sustain Dev, 1(1), 128–132. Williams, K., Burton, E., & Jenks, M. (Eds.). (2000). Achieving sustainable urban form. London: E & FN Spon.

3

Advances in Compact City Planning and Development: Emerging Practices and Strategies for Balancing the Goals of Sustainability

3.1

Introduction

Since its widespread diffusion in the early 1990s, sustainable development has significantly influenced urban planning and development as manifested in the emergence and prevalence of sustainable urban forms across the globe, notably compact cities. A number of recent UN-Habitat reports and policy papers argue that the compact city model has positive effects on resource efficiency, economy, citizen health, social cohesion, and cultural dynamics (UN Habitat 2011, 2014a, c, 2015). During the 1990s, the discourse on sustainable development produced the notion of compact city planning and development that became a hegemonic response to the challenges of sustainable development (Jenks and Dempsey 2005) by focusing on intensification, creating limits to urban growth, encouraging mixed use and diverse development, and placing a greater focus on the role of public transportation and the quality of urban design (Arbury 2005). In the EU Green Paper of the Urban Environment, the compact city model was advocated as the most sustainable for urban development (CEC 1990). Indeed, according to many studies (e.g., Bibri and Krogstie 2017b; Jabareen 2006; Næss 2013; Newman and Kenworthy 1999), the compact city can promote sustainability by reducing the amount of travel and shortening commute time; decreasing car dependency; lowering per capita rates of energy use; limiting the consumption of building and infrastructure materials; mitigating pollution; maintaining the diversity for choice among workplaces, service facilities, and social contacts; and limiting the loss of green and natural areas. Cities can harness the advantages of agglomeration and tap into the tremendous variety of benefits that compact cities have to offer through proper planning, development, and governance. In particular, cities as the most compact settlements of people have a tremendous effect on environmental changes (Girardet and Schumacher 1999), and low population density is the most environmentally harmful form in urban structures (UN Habitat 2014b).

The benefits of compact cities, as research from around the globe suggests, are not guaranteed as desired outcomes. This relates to the issues argued against by the critics of the compact city model that should be addressed so that this model can gain in more popularity. By and large, most of these issues pertain to the unforeseen consequences and unanticipated effects of compact cities that fall under what is called in urban planning “wicked problems,” a term that has gained more currency in urban policy analysis after the adoption of sustainable development within urban planning since the early 1990s, and that are often overlooked because of failing to approach compact cities from a holistic approach, or to treat them in too immediate and simplistic terms. Rittel and Webber (1973), the first to define the term, associate wicked problems with urban planning, arguing that the essential character of wicked problems is that they cannot be solved in practice by a central planner. Such problems are so complex and dependent on so many factors that it is hard to grasp what exactly the problem is, or how to tackle it. In other words, they are difficult to explain and impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are not easy to recognize. In addition, in the current climate of the unprecedented urbanization and increased uncertainty of the world, it may be more challenging for cities in developed countries to configure themselves more sustainably. The predicted 70% rate of urbanization by 2050 (UN Habitat 2015) reveals that the sustainability of the urban environment will be a key factor in the global resilience to forthcoming changes. This implies that the city governments will face significant challenges pertaining to environmental, economic, and social sustainability due to the issues engendered by urban growth. These include increased energy consumption, pollution, toxic waste disposal, resource depletion, inefficient management of urban infrastructures and facilities, inadequate planning processes and decision-making systems, poor housing and working conditions, saturated transport networks, endemic congestion, and social inequality and vulnerability (Bibri 2019a; Bibri and Krogstie 2017a). In a

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. E. Bibri, Advances in the Leading Paradigms of Urbanism and their Amalgamation, Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41746-8_3

41

3 Advances in Compact City Planning and Development …

42

nutshell, urban growth raises a variety of problems that tend to jeopardize the sustainability of cities, as it puts an enormous strain on urban systems and processes as well as ecosystem services. Furthermore, cities in developed countries are likely to experience an even more rapid decline in average densities through more sprawling patterns, despite slower population growth, thereby diminishing the amount of reproductive and ecologically buffering land available for ecosystem support and food supply, reducing the ability of city-regions to support themselves unless they adopt and pursue more compact urban development strategies. A large body of work has investigated the presumed outcome of the compact city model achieved through planning practices and development strategies. More specifically, scholars have discussed to what extent it produces the claimed environmental, economic, and social benefits of sustainability (Jenks and Jones 2010; Lin and Yang 2006; Burton 2002). Here the focus is often on the design principles and strategies of the compact city model (Bibri and Krogstie 2017b; Boussauw 2012; Dumreicher et al. 2000; Jabareen 2006; Kärrholm 2011; Van Bueren et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2000). This line of research directs attention to their link to the goals of sustainable development as to its tripartite composition. As such, it opens the way for cross-domain analyses in terms of integrating environmental, economic, and social aspects (e.g., Krueger and Gibbs 2007). This chapter follows this path by examining how the compact city model is practiced and justified in urban planning and development in relevance to sustainability, and whether any kind of practical progress has been made in this regard. Accordingly, it seeks to answer these questions: What are the dominant design principles and strategies of the compact city model, and in what ways do they mutually complement, or beneficially affect, one another in terms of producing the expected benefits of sustainability? To what extent does the compact city model support and contribute to the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainable development? In this context, the term “principle” means a proposition that serves as the foundation for the compact city model, and the term “strategy” denotes an approach that is used to achieve the goals of sustainable development. To illuminate the phenomenon of the compact city accordingly, a descriptive case study is adopted as a qualitative research methodology where the empirical basis is mainly formed by urban plans and practices in two Swedish cities: Gothenburg and Helsingborg, in combination with qualitative interview data, secondary data, and scientific literature. This chapter demonstrates how the compact city model is practiced and justified by the two Swedish cities in their urban planning and development. Forming the basis for the planning and development of the future of these cities, their visions, policies, and strategies are developed along the lines of argument supported by European Union policy documents that a

compact city structure has positive effects on efficient use of resources, economic development, and citizen well-being (CEC 2011); that compact city policies result in reduced energy consumption and emissions in transportation at different spatial scales, in conservation of farmlands and biodiversity, and in reduction of infrastructure cost and increase of labor productivity (OECD 2012a); and that cultural, social, and political dynamics are promoted by density, proximity, and diverse choices available within compact cities (CEC 1990). This chapter unfolds as follows. Section 3.2 provides a relevant literature review of the compact city. Section 3.3 focuses on the theoretical framework of this study in terms of discourse, discursive and social practices, and institutionalization as related to the social construction of the phenomenon of the compact city. Section 3.4 outlines, justifies, and elaborates the research methodology used for data collection and analysis. Section 3.5 presents the results of the case studies. Section 3.6 discusses the results and how they are interpreted in perspective of previous studies. Finally, the paper concludes, in Sect. 3.7, by summarizing the main findings, providing some reflections, and suggesting potential avenues for future research.

3.2

Literature Review

3.2.1 Sustainable Cities and Related Approaches—Compact Cities There are multiple views on what a sustainable city should be or look like and thus various ways of conceptualizing it. Generally, a sustainable city can be understood as a set of approaches into operationalizing sustainable development in, or practically applying the knowledge about sustainability and related technologies to the planning and design of existing and new cities or districts. It represents an instance of sustainable urban development, a strategic approach to achieving the long-term goals of urban sustainability. Accordingly, it needs to balance between the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainability as an integrated process. There are different approaches to sustainable cities, which are also identified as models of sustainable urban forms, including compact cities, eco-cities, green cities, new urbanism, landscape urbanism, and urban containment. Of these, compact cities are advocated as the most sustainable and environmentally sound model. However, in Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, Williams et al. (2000, p. 355) conclude that sustainable urban forms are “characterized by compactness (in various forms), mix of uses and interconnected street layouts, supported by strong public transport networks, environmental controls and high standards of urban management.” The compact city model is considered as one of the planning and development strategies that can achieve more

3.2 Literature Review

43

sustainable cities in terms of their environmental, economic, and social goals. According to Burton (2002), the compact city is taken to mean “a relatively high-density, mixed-use city, based on an efficient public transport system and dimensions that encourage walking and cycling.” According to another view, the compact city is characterized by high-density and mixed land use with no sprawl (Jenks et al. 1996a, b; Williams et al. 2000) through urban intensification, that is, infill, renewal, development, redevelopment, and so on. The compact city concept is associated with the term “urban intensification,” which “relates to the range of processes which make an area more compact” (Williams et al. 1996a). It has been addressed and can be implemented at different levels, namely neighborhood, district, city, metropolitan, and region, and involves many strategies that

can avoid all the problems of modernist planning and design in cities by enhancing the underlying environmental, economic, and social justifications and drivers.

3.2.2 Compact City Dimensions While many studies have been carried out on compact cities across the globe focusing on different approaches to compact urban planning and development, they do share the core dimensions of the compact urban form with a slight difference in details. This is illustrated in Table 3.1, which also serves to inform and guide the selection of the design principles and strategies to be studied in relation to the cases of Gothenburg and Helsingborg.

Table 3.1 Approaches to and dimensions of the compact urban form Scholars and Organizations

Focus of Studies

Dimensions

(UN–Habitat 2015)

Strategy of sustainable neighborhood planning

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Adequate space for streets Efficient street network High density Mixed land uses Social mix Limited land use specialization

(Jabareen 2006)

Design concepts of sustainable urban forms and their contribution to sustainability

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Compactness Density Mixed land uses Diversity Sustainable transport

(Kotharkar, Bahadure and Sarda 2014)

Measuring compact urban form

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Density Density Distribution Mixed land uses Transportation network Accessibility Shape

(Jones and Macdonald 2004)

Sustainable urban form components and economic sustainability

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Mixture of Land uses Density Transport infrastructure Characteristics of built environment Layout

(Dempsey et al. 2010)

Sustainable urban form components

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Density Mixed land uses Transport infrastructure Accessibility Built environment characteristics Urban layout

(Song and Knaap 2004)

Quantitative measure of urban form

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Density Mixed land uses Pedestrian access Accessibility Street design and circulation system

(OECD 2012b)

Policies of compact city: a comparative assessment

1. Compactness 2. Impact of compact city policies

(Bertaud 2001)

Analysis of spatial organization of large cities

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Spatial Distribution of Population Spatial Distribution of Trips Average density and land consumption Density profile Population by distance to center of gravity

3 Advances in Compact City Planning and Development …

44

3.2.3 Issues, Policies, and Research Approaches There is a large body of empirical work on compact cities, especially in the form of case studies. It tends to focus on a range of the environmental, economic, and social issues of sustainability as well as the policy and planning practices and design and developnent strategies for achieving the goals of sustainable development. A set of recent studies is selected and compiled in Table 3.2. As regards the theoretical work, studies on compact cities have approached the topic from one or a combination of these perspectives: planning theory, design theory, policy, resilience theory, urban morphology, scale theory, human geography, complexity theory, systems theory, action net theory, actor network theory, spatial analysis, regenerative design, economic theory, and causal relationship, in addition to a range of discursive studies, critical studies, comparative studies, socio-technical studies, and so on.

Table 3.2 Examples of case studies on compact cities

3.2.4 Sustainability Benefits of the Compact City As widely acknowledged in urban planning, the image of the compact city has proven to be a highly influential translation of what a sustainable city should be, carried by the significance of the design principles and strategies of this model of sustainable urban form. As a desirable form, it indeed secures a development that is environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially advantageous (Burton 2002; Dempsey 2010; Jenks and Dempsey 2005; Jenks and Jones 2010), especially when it is well–designed and strategically planned. As such, it can be viewed as an all–encompassing understanding of urban complexities as well as an all-embracing conception of planning practices. Table 3.3 presents the key benefits of the compact city (Bibri 2018a, 2019a; Bibri and Krogstie 2017b, Burton 2000, 2001; CEC 1990; Dempsey and Jenks 2010; Frey 1999; Hofstad 2012; Jabareen 2006;

Country

Issues

Policies

Paris, France (OECD 2012b)

Urban development Car dependency Loss of green space

Regional development agenda Grand Paris Express connection

Hong Kong, China (Lau et al. 2002)

Urban development Traffic congestion Urban sprawl growth High immigration Flat land shortage

The Concept of Vertical City The Concept of Compact City The Concept of Sky City

Melbourne, Australia (OECD 2012b)

Decline in economic sectors Rapid urban growth Increased car and truck ownership Urban sprawl growth

Revitalization of Central Melbourne Deregulation policies on and conversion of land use

Amsterdam, Netherland (Nabielek 2012)

Scattered development Increased congestion High urbanization Urban sprawl growth High immigration

The Structure Plan The National Environmental Policy Plan The National Policy on Spatial Planning

Tokyo and Gothenburg (Lim and Kain 2016)

Density of built objects Scales of built objects Distribution of the diversity of built objects

The Concept of Compact City Comprehensive Plan for Gothenburg Master Plan for Tokyo Planning by Design Planning by Developmental Control Planning by Coding/Rule–based Planning

Auckland, New Zealand (Arbury 2005)

Rapid urban growth Car dependency Transportation system Urban sprawl growth

Regional Growth Strategy for Compact Development Regional Growth Strategy 2050

Toyama, Japan (OECD 2012b; Suzuki 2010)

Increasing car dependency Population density decline Urban centers decline Agricultural land decline

Master Plan for Toyama City Toyama Compact City Model The City’s Density Target and Grant Program

3.2 Literature Review

45

Jenks and Jones 2010; Alberti 2000; Van and Senior 2000; Newman and Kenworthy 1999; Williams et al. 2000). In sum, the compact city model has been advocated as the most sustainable approach to urban form due to several reasons: “First, compact cities are argued to be efficient for more sustainable modes of transport. Second, compact cities are seen as a sustainable use of land. By reducing sprawl, land in the countryside is preserved and land in towns can be recycled for development. Third, in social terms, compactness and mixed uses are associated with diversity, social cohesion, and cultural development. Some also argue that it is an equitable form because it offers good accessibility. Fourth, compact cities are argued to be economically viable because infrastructure, such as roads and street lighting, can be provided cost-effectively per capita” (Jabareen 2006, p. 46).

3.2.5 The Compact City Paradox Although research and policy argue for more compact cities, referring to higher density, diversity, mixed land use, Table 3.3 The key sustainability benefits of the compact city

sustainable transportation, and green areas, they are, as with all sustainable development approaches, associated with some conflicts. To begin with, the compact city model produces high levels of noise pollution due to the close proximity between dwellings, transport lines, business activities, and service facilities (De Roo 2000). Thus, the concentrated impact of dense populations on the environment and the lack of planning for noise pollution control prevent the desired outcomes of this model from being achieved, e.g., direct negative health effects. Moreover, a number of studies (e.g., Breheny 1992, 1997; Neuman 2005) argue that compact urban developments can increase land and dwelling prices, cause severe congestion in transport, and create social exclusion. Also, it is argued that neighborhood density might impact negatively on neighborhood satisfaction (Bramley and Power 2009), sense of attachment, and sense of the quality of public utilities (Dempsey et al. 2012). Breheny (1997) examines empirical data regarding the effects of the compact policies on the population, and concludes that it is deeply unsatisfied about the higher density of dwellings development. Research even asserts

Sustainability benefits of the compact city Environmental sustainability • Lowering per capita rates of energy use • More energy efficiency and less pollution due to the proximity to workplaces, services, facilities, and public spaces • Decreasing travel needs and costs • Minimizing the transportation of energy, materials, water, and products due to the compactness of urban space • Optimizing the operational efficiency of the transport system • Limiting the consumption of building and infrastructure materials • Reducing car dependency and thus CO2 emissions due to sustainable mobility and short travel distance • Saving and conserving energy by combining heat and power provisions made possible by population densities • Reducing the pressure on green and natural areas, ecosystem services, and biodiversity • Limiting the loss of green and natural areas • Protecting rural land from further development Economic sustainability • Supporting local services and businesses through population densities • Revitalizing the city areas through the promotion of density, mixed land use, as well as public transportation • Improving commercial properties and housing markets • Extending and enhancing public transportation infrastructure • Creating proximity between people and their workplaces • Promoting greater diversity among employers and thus greater diversity of job possibilities • Increasing compatibility between job seekers and job skills and thus boosting productivity • Maintaining the diversity for choice among workplaces, service facilities, and social contacts Social sustainability • Providing a better quality of life by creating meeting places for social interaction, community spirit, and cultural vitality due to the proximity to workplaces, services, facilities, and public spaces • Reducing crime and improving public safety through natural surveillance • Improving social equity through a ready made access to services, facilities, and green and recreational areas, as well as flexible design of housing forms and their affordability • Supporting human, psychological, and physical health through ready access to open space, walkability in neighborhoods, and social interaction • Enhancing livability in terms of the natural environments, social stability, and cultural possibilities • Healing spatial segregation by forging the links between communities within and across the different parts of the city

3 Advances in Compact City Planning and Development …

46

that more dense urban areas are often responsible for high crime levels (Burton 2000). In addition, arguing against the concept, critics of the compact city highlight increased ecological footprint due to higher consumption, larger income gaps (Heinonen and Junnila 2011), decreased living space for low income groups, and accessibility issues to green and natural areas (Burton 2001). The first two issues might be linked to low income population in dense urban areas, rather than to the urban form itself (Glaeser 2011). They may also be attributed to a design problem and not necessarily linked to urban compactness given that crowding is a problem of perception of urban space (Kearney 2006). Similarly, negative social problems related to density may be due to the characteristics of the urban areas in terms of poverty concentration, rather than to the urban form itself (Bramley and Power 2009). Accordingly, urban problems and urban form are not clearly correlated. There is a risk that generic problems of urbanization are criticized as being problems of the compact city (Lim and Kain 2016). As Glaeser (2011, p. 9) puts it: “Cities do not make people poor; they attract poor people. The flow of less advantaged people into cities from Rio to Rotterdam demonstrates urban strength, not weakness.” The debate over the compact city as a set of planning and development strategies is actually between two groups: the “decentrists”, in favor of a decentralized form, and the “centrists,” in favor of a high-density compact form. Breheny (1996) discusses the view on the future of urban form in relation to decentrists, centrists, as well as compromisers. Based on the literature, the main critical arguments of the compact city are advanced by the decentrists who are skeptical on the environmental benefits delivered by the strategy. They claim that the expected energy reduction is modest compared to the discomfort caused by the necessary rigorous policies. They believe that it is impossible to halt the urban decentralization phenomenon that is suited to the majority of the population, which favors tranquillity of rural and semi-rural areas. In short, the dominant reasons for the heated debate revolve around GHG emissions, energy consumption, and the loss of open green areas in favor of the rapid urbanization. A key point against the compact city model regards the loss of green spaces in the cities and the inevitable development of green fields outward due to the increased congestion and high-density development (Breheny 1996). As another line of argument, policymakers have been “cherry-picking those aspects of the compact city as a sustainable urban model most attractive to their needs, such as increasing densities and containing urban sprawl…, which largely reflect dominant economic or environmental interests” (Dempsey and Jenks 2010, p. 119). While this may well be the case, it is also safe to argue that creating robust

alternatives able to confront the hegemony of unsustainable economic development within urban planning takes time to develop and become established (Hofstad 2012). Worth pointing out is that the above conflicting and contentious issues are still largely associated with the whereabouts of the compact city as to its implementation and development, and what types of planning approaches are adopted to promote dense and diverse urban patterns. With regard to the former, according to Breheny (1997), the conclusions of many studies are pretty vague and vary from case to case when it comes to the environmental benefits delivered from the compaction strategy. With respect to the latter, there is a need to focus planning evaluation on the implementation of plans, particularly in the context where urban form attracts growing interest as the spatial concretization of urban sustainability (Oliveira and Pinho 2010). This pertains particularly to those countries with high level of sustainable development practices. In relation to this argument, as urban planning generally takes place in open systems with many purposeful parts (i.e., people and organizations pursuing their interests), it is difficult to link planning activities to outcomes in the urban reality (Laurian et al. 2010). Nonetheless, there are highly institutionalized planning systems (e.g., Sweden) to increase the likelihood that planning indeed affects the urban reality. Lim and Kain (2016) examine the differences in the outcome of the different planning approaches in Sweden and Japan in relation to urban characteristics, such as density and diversity. Furthermore, compact cities involve a number of problems, issues, and challenges when it comes to planning, design, and development at the technical and policy levels in the context of sustainability. Bibri and Krogstie (2019) provide a detailed review of sustainable urban forms in terms of fallacies, limitations, deficiencies, difficulties, uncertainties, as well as new opportunities and prospects offered by advanced technologies and their novel applications.

3.3

Theoretical Framework: Discourse, Discursive and Social Practices, and Institutionalization

Much of the broader literature on compact cities attempts to investigate various propositions about what makes a city compact and hence sustainable. Work on compact cities tends to either attempt to describe the phenomenon, or focuses on normative prescriptions for achieving compact city status. Based on prescriptive literature, it appears that the compact city could be understood as a way of practically applying the existing knowledge from different areas of sustainability about what makes a city compact to the planning and design of new and existing cities. However, the

3.3 Theoretical Framework: Discourse, Discursive and Social …

relationship between planning and design interventions and sustainable development objectives is a subject of much debate (Bibri and Krogstie 2017a, b; Bibri 2019a; Bulkeley and Betsill 2005; Williams 2010). This means that realizing a compact city requires making countless decisions about urban form (spatial patterns), building design, infrastructure development, and governance. This occurs through social processes (Bibri and Krogstie 2016) consisting of complex negotiations and sometimes even conflicts (Flyvbjerg 1998; Hajer 1995; Healey 2007). Following this perspective, this chapter views the compact city as socially constructed through design and policymaking processes, and thus the outcome of social processes involving numerous stakeholders. Social constructionism deals with the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. This occurs through the discourse and discursive formations. Discourse analysis as underpinned by a social constructionist orientation to knowledge can help to examine constructions of meaning in relation to the compact city. Foucault (1972) defines discourse as a group of statements which provide a language for talking about a way of representing the knowledge about a particular topic at a particular historical moment. Hajer (1995, p. 44) defines discourse as “a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities.” In the context of this chapter, underlying the term “discourse” is the idea that language as a form of discursive practice is structured according to a system of statements (e.g., what can be said about the compact city) used by people (e.g., policymakers, planners, developers, researchers, scholars, etc.) as a particular way of understanding and talking about the urban world (e.g., design principles and strategies of compact city planning and development and their environmental, economic, and social benefits of sustainability), as well as taking part in different domains of urban life (e.g., urban planning, urban design, urban development, urban research, etc.). All social practices have a discursive aspect since they entail meaning, and meanings shape and influence what we do (1972). In this regard, discourses become practices which form the object that discourses talk about (Foucault 1972). The object takes the form of a coherent set of concepts, terminologies, claims, assumptions, classifications, and visions that are constructed, reconstructed, transformed, and challenged in urban design and planning practices. Through such practices, a discourse may be structured and start to dominate the way the urban landscape is conceptualized (Hajer and Versteeg 2008). Our understanding of virtually all aspects of social life is based on some kind of discourse:

47

this is the way we make sense of, or ascribe meaning to, the world around us. In fact, as meaning and the code by which to decipher it is dynamic and ambiguous, actors reduce reality by being selective as well as reformulating, simplifying, and limiting their environment, thereby giving structure to reality and creating discourse. Thus, social reality is produced and made real, that is, socially anchored and institutionalized actions become meaningful through discourse, and social interactions with their various forms of social processes cannot be utterly understood without reference to the discourses that give them meaning in the first place. In short, the constitution of social life occurs through discursive practices: the production, interpretation, and consumption of all kinds of documents. A discursive practice refers to the process through which a certain (dominant) reality comes into being (Foucault 1972). It in turn represents actions that are taken as part of the real-world application of different discourses of knowledge. It also entails activities that people engage in, deliberately, with the aim of developing knowledge and skills. All in all, social, political, and cultural reproduction and change take place through discursive practices. Furthermore, there is a dialectical relationship between discourse and social practice. Certain social practices become legitimate forms of actions from within discourse as a system of understanding the world, and these practices, in turn, reproduce and support the discourse which legitimates them in the first place. Constructionist worldview posits that particular understanding of the world leads to particular social actions, whereby some forms of actions become unthinkable. However, particular discursive constructions and the position contained within discourses open up and close down opportunities for actions by constructing particular ways of seeing the world and positioning an array of subjects within them in particular ways. The compact city is an established and powerful discourse. This is demonstrated by the contemporary scholars and practitioners from many disciplines and professional fields relating to it in a structured way in many contexts. It is a “hegemonic discourse” (Hajer 1995; Sum 2004) as manifested in that it is so embedded in society that asking about its assumptions is about uttering nonsense. Being a hegemonic semantic order, the compact city is socially constructed, that is, resonated with material mechanisms and practices. The dialectic of discursivity and materiality is crucial to the social construction of the phenomenon of the compact city. That is, developing, institutionalizing, and conventionalizing it through social constructs, which are produced by, and depend on, contingent aspects of social selves through social practices (Bibri 2019d; Bibri and Krogstie 2016). Constituting urban objects and their related subjects with specific material and ideal interests (discursive

3 Advances in Compact City Planning and Development …

48

constructions), the discourse of the compact city plays a role together with material mechanisms and practices in transforming urban domination. This discourse is reproduced materially through institutional and organizational apparatuses and their techniques, actors, and practices. This material reproduction entails the translation of the underlying urban visions into hegemonic urban strategies and initiatives, as well as their institutionalization in urban structures and practices. As constructed in the light of new conceptions about the environmental, economic, social, and cultural changes over the past three decades—the compact city “contains an all-embracing understanding of the problems cities are facing and is also the defining context for suggested solutions” (Jessop 1998, p. 78) as future possibilities for the problems and challenges of sustainability and urbanization. In sum, structuring and institutionalizing signify a dominant discourse, which influences not only how we understand a specific problem, but also how we act upon it, including, as added by (Schmidt 2008), the interactive processes by which ideas are conveyed. A discursive approach is of high relevance to the study of compact city planning and development in relation to sustainability because it highlights the way that actors construct issues in a particular social context, and enables to understand how planning and development decisions are made (see, e.g., Bibri and Krogstie 2016, 2017a; Dryzek 2005; Kumar and Pallathucheril 2004; Portugali and Alfasi 2008). It can also reveal the basis of the claims that the compact city can make the city more sustainable. In addition, it is especially suitable in studies of vague, dynamic, and contested concepts because it draws attention to the creation, interpretation, and reinterpretation of meaning (Hajer 1995; Torfing 2004). This applies to this study, which attempts to capture the linkages between compact city and sustainable development as dominant discourses by identifying concrete environmental, economic, and social goals achievable by design principles and strategies in city plans (structuration) and the planning practices supporting them (institutionalization). The latter involve norms, procedures, rules, routines, and instruments. Hence, the analytical approach pursued by this chapter combines discursive theories focusing on meaning formation and the institutional apparatuses structuring practices. According to Foucault (1980), in relation to the manner by which discourses are applied to the social world, “discursive formations” in a given society comprise institutional apparatuses and their techniques, such as the systems of thought, the institutions, the rules, the things, and the subjects. However, the focus here is on the decisive role of discursive elements in institutional development (Schmidt 2010; Hay 2011). As a structure, institutions constitute “background ideational abilities” contributing with the rationality of a specific setting internalized by the agents (Schmidt 2008, p. 315). As a construct, they consist of

“foreground ideational abilities” which, as governed by communicative logic, enable institutional change as the deliberative nature of discourse allows agents to “conceive of and talk about institutions as objects at a distance, and to dissociate themselves from them even as they continue to use them” (Schmidt 2008, p. 316). Following discourse theory and discourse institutionalization, this chapter identifies the preferred measures in compact city planning and development and how they contribute to the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainability in two Swedish cities.

3.4

Research Methodology

3.4.1 Case Study Inquiry Case study research has long been of prominence in many disciplines. As a research methodology, case study is well-established in the social sciences and other scientific and technological fields. Creswell et al. (2007, p. 245) describe case study methodology as “a type of design in qualitative research, an object of study, and a product of the inquiry.” The authors conclude with a definition that collates the hallmarks of key approaches and that represents the core features of a case study: “a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information…and reports a case description and case-based themes” (Creswell et al. 2007, p. 245). Case study approach is usual for multiple sources of evidence to be used (Yin 2009, 2017), e.g., documents and reports, observations, interviews, and so on. In urban planning and development, case study as a type of research inquiry analyzes a specific problem within the boundaries of a given spatial scale (e.g., building, neighborhood, district, city, region, etc.), environment, situation, or organization unit, and applies the findings to the problem under study. In other words, it examines a contemporary real-world phenomenon and may inform practice by illustrating what has worked well, what has been achieved, what has been the issue, and what needs to and will be improved in the future. Further, it involves a contextual analysis of a limited number of events and their relationships. In the context of this chapter, it analyzes a set of events and their relationships after a certain period of time has passed, as well as in connection with ongoing development endeavors and planning goals to discover the phenomenon of the compact city, more specifically the underlying design principles and strategies and their clear link to the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainability. Indeed, case study is an important way of illustrating theories and the effects of

3.4 Research Methodology

their application. That is to say, to test how and to what extent theories work in the real-world setting. In addition, case study can be useful for understanding how different elements fit together and may (co-)produce the observed impacts in a particular context and based on a given set of intertwined factors.

3.4.2 Case Study Design Categories According to their design, case studies can be divided into several categories, including descriptive, explanatory, exploratory, illustrative, cumulative, and critical instance, each of which is custom selected for use depending on the objectives of the researcher. Case study research can be used to study a range of topics and purposes (Simons 2009; Stake 2006; Stewart 2014; Yin 2017). With that in mind, this case study uses a descriptive design, an approach which is focused and detailed, and in which questions and propositions about the phenomenon of the compact city are carefully scrutinized and articulated at the outset. The articulation of what is already known about this phenomenon is called a descriptive theory, which in this context pertains to sustainable urban forms. Therefore, the main goal of this descriptive case study is to assess the selected cases in detail and in-depth based on that articulation. This research design intends to describe the phenomenon of the compact city in its real-world context, to draw on Yin (2014, 2017). Important to note, the general image of this phenomenon doesn’t not have enough evidence to explain how and why that phenomenon works out like it does. It is worth pointing out that the internal validity in this research design, i.e., the approximate truth about inferences regarding cause-effect in relation to this phenomenon, is of irrelevance as in most descriptive studies. It is only relevant in studies that attempt to establish a causal relationship such as explanatory case studies. Indeed, descriptive research is used to describe characteristics of certain phenomena, and does not address questions about how/why/when the characteristics occurred—no causal relationship.

3.4.3 Descriptive Case Study Characteristics Descriptive research here involves the description, analysis, and interpretation of the present nature, composition, and processes of two Swedish cities, where the focus is on the prevailing conditions, or how these cities behave or function in the present in terms of what has been realized and the implementation of plans based on the corresponding practices and strategies. This entails the ongoing and future activities to be undertaken in accordance with the time horizon set in the planning and development documents. Moreover, as an urban event based on two instances, the

49

compact city involves a set of indicators of an integrated city system in operation that requires an analysis to allow obtaining a broad and detailed knowledge about such system. To achieve this, this descriptive case study consists of the following: • Using a narrative framework that focuses on the compact city as a real-world problem and provides essential facts about it, including relevant background information. • Introducing the reader to key concepts, strategies, and policies relevant to the problem under investigation. • Explaining the actual solutions in terms of plans, the processes of implementing them, and the outcomes. • Offering analysis and evaluation of the chosen solutions and related issues, including strengths, weaknesses, tradeoffs, and lessons learned. Considering the above, one of the essential requisites for employing case study stems from one’s motivation to illuminate a complex phenomenon (Merriam 2009; Stake 2006; Yin 2017). Further, the outcome of this descriptive case study should serve as an input to Step 5 (specifying and merging the components of the socio-technical system to be developed) and Step 6 (performing backcasting backward-looking analysis) of the futures study being conducted to analyze, investigate, and develop a novel model for smart sustainable cities of the future (Bibri and Krogstie 2019). (See Chapter 10 for the guiding question for the six steps of the backcasting study). By carefully studying any unit of a certain universe, we are in terms of knowing some general aspects of it, at least a perspective that guides and informs subsequent research (Wieviorka 1992). In other words, descriptive case studies often represent the first scholarly toe in the water in new areas of inquiry.

3.4.4 Descriptive Case Study as a Basis of Backcasting One important use of the case study approach in research is planning, which in turn is at the core of the backcasting approach to futures studies. However, the purpose of analyzing and evaluating the two cases considered here together with the other case studies (namely eco–cities and data–driven smart cities (Bibri and Krogstie 2020a, b) is to provide a foundation for backcasting the future phenomenon of the data-driven smart sustainable city. In this case, it is necessary first and foremost to define which characteristics of the future state of this phenomenon are ‘interesting’ and should be included in the backcasting (see Bibri and Krogstie 2019a, b for Step 1, 2, and 3 of the backcasting study). Evidently, recent data in this regard are of primary importance as a basis for the backcasting. Other material needed to make a backcasting

50

depends on how strong a ‘theoretical and disciplinary framework’ we have about the expected data-driven smart sustainable city of the future and its internal relationships (see Bibri 2018a, c, 2019a; for further details). Commonly, quite a strong basis for backcasting is available when there is such a framework which underpins and explains the phenomenon in question in terms of its foundation and justification, as well as its associated outcomes as a new and future paradigm of urbanism). All in all, the results of all the case studies carried out are intended to guide and inform the backcasting study in question as an overarching endeavor. Overall, the futures study combines investigation (case studies) and theory understanding—a literature-based activity in combination with consultations with urban theorists and experts—to study the application, effects, and integration of urban sustainability and ICT theories. This chapter is concerned with the first set of the case studies to be performed. Combined, the multiple cases that are the subject of the inquiry represent—as combined—an instance of the phenomenon of the smart sustainable city that provides an analytical frame— an object—within which the futures study is conducted, and which the chosen cases (i.e., cities, districts, and projects) in their integrated form illuminates and explicates from a futuristic perspective. Therefore, it is of most relevance to target and prioritize urban planning and development strategies envisioning sustainable cities and smart sustainable cities of the future. Additionally, all the cases chosen to be investigated are particularly useful for tackling an ill-structured problem in a situation where more than one approach or solution should be explored or needed, respectively.

3.4.5 Describing a Case on the Basis of Theoretical Frameworks When planning an empirical study, it is usually advisable to base the work on existing theoretical frameworks or a set of theories set side by side. This can help the work decisively. Otherwise, the study would be laborious and uncertain. With that in mind, this descriptive case study started with a search of literature for theoretical frameworks for sustainable urban forms. In addition, many case studies of the world were consulted to identify the common indicators of the compact city—which are informed by the theories of urban planning for sustainable development. Basing this study on theoretical frameworks supported by practical evidence is justified on the claim that the object of the study does not need to be documented as completely as possible, thereby restricting the description to those topics that have been documented in earlier studies. However, as characteristic of descriptive research, this study has no intention to provide a comprehensive understanding of the compact city by proving theoretical linkages between the underlying components. On

3 Advances in Compact City Planning and Development …

the whole, describing the selected cases on the basis of theory stems from the fact that the topic of the compact city has already been studied in several fields of research. Therefore, the object of this descriptive case study can be investigated in the light of the earlier theory.

3.4.6 Selection Criteria, Unit of Analysis, and Data Collection and Analysis Methods The selection of all of the cases to be studied was done in line with the overall aim of the futures study being carried out. With that in mind, the rationale for selecting Swedish cities or districts as cases for investigation is that Sweden is one of the Scandinavian countries that have exemplary practical initiatives in sustainable cities, both compact cities and eco-cities, in addition to a number of recent endeavors related to smart sustainable cities. This is at the core of the proposed model for smart sustainable cities of the future for urban planning and development, which is the main focus of the futures study in question. In particular, according to several rankings, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan have the highest level of sustainable development practices (Dryzek 2005). Several empirical studies identify from the mid-1980s onward an increasing ecological disruption in most of the ecologically advanced nations, such as Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan (Mol 2000). In the context of this chapter, the two Swedish cities selected have been receptive to the compact city ideal. They have chosen the compact city strategy as the most effective planning system that can go hand in hand with sustainable development in light of the relevance and usefulness of the findings produced by many studies in the field of sustainable urbanism. As such, they may be seen as successful examples of compact planning and development, as well as critical cases in sustainable urban development. This is due to their long planning traditions and the existence of relatively solid economic resources on the local level, the national focus on sustainability in Sweden, and the wide authorization given to local authorities (Baldersheim and Ståhlberg 2002; Kalbro et al. 2010; Rose and Ståhlberg 2005). Moreover, they express sustainability ambitions in their master and comprehensive plans, support progress and expansion over time, and experience developmental pressure on their landscapes due to urbanization. Additionally, it was important to ensure that there was sufficient information available in the public realm to do an analysis on these two cases. On the basis of those criteria, Gothenburg and Helsingborg have been selected as compact cities for investigation. They illustrate how ambitious cities handle the sustainability and urbanization challenges, and how different values and interests are weighted and secured through urban planning and

3.4 Research Methodology

development. All in all, the selection criteria secured cases where sustainability discourses, planning measures, practical advancements, as well as future goals are present. The focus of the ongoing backcasting study constitutes the basis for determining the unit of analysis concerning the cases in question. The object of study on focus in this chapter is the design principles and strategies of the compact city model and the extent to which they produce the environmental, economic, and social benefits of sustainability. This is essential to focalizing, framing, and managing data collection and analysis. To identify the design principles and strategies and their link to the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainability, the concepts “density,” “densification,” “compactness,” “diversity,” “mixed land use,” “social mix,” “sustainable transport,” and “green space” were searched for in the two cities’ master/comprehensive plans and other planning and development documents. These broad concepts linked to the environmental, economic, and social goals of sustainability were then mapped. This process allowed to focus on the compact city model in relation to these goals. Furthermore, the results of the document analysis were triangulated with local thematic plans relevant to the three dimensions of sustainability, and to information from the two cities’ websites, newspaper articles/internet discussions, observations, and interviewees. Observations were used in Helsingborg by visiting different sites of ongoing projects in relation to compact city development, namely bike and multi-use paths across the city, dense and mixed-use development within different nodes, renewal of the city center, transformation of the built areas, creation of parks and green space, improvement of transport infrastructure. Primary data were collected through face-to-face and telephone interviews with a total of 10 interviewees, including planners, architects, developers, and administrative servants. They were mostly working within those areas that involve contentious and challenging issues based on both the outcome of the previous empirical studies carried out in relevance to this study as well as the arguments advanced by the critics of the compact city model. One of the key objectives of the interviews was to corroborate the progress made by the two municipalities as to the development and implementation of new measures to address the issues related to the environmental and social dimensions of the compact city. The rationale is that the compact city model is historically proven to provide many advantages to people (Jacobs 1961), being the longest established sustainable urban form with a multitude of impressive practical initiatives around the world. The interviews were mostly unstructured and guided by the three sustainability dimensions in terms of the past and ongoing issues related to the above mentioned topics. They were meant to be used in ways that can be adapted to the interviewees’ roles and interests. This means that the interviewees were asked different questions. Findings were

51

reported as statements relating to the design principles and strategies of the compact city, and included complementing, substantiating, and conflicting statements. The collected interview data were analyzed using the six steps prescribed by Braun and Clarke (2006) to carry out thematic analysis, namely: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Familiarizing yourself with your data Generating initial codes Searching for themes Reviewing themes Defining and naming themes Producing the report.

In addition, a set of face-to-face and telephone conversations were conducted with some researchers and scholars at Lund University, Gothenburg University, and Chalmers University of Technology. They were particularly important in providing insights into some ongoing projects and useful knowledge regarding social and environmental sustainability in the context of sustainable cities. As far as the face-to-face conversations are concerned, they took place with no schedule set in advance, whenever the circumstances allowed. Important to note, as this study is concerned with the design principles and strategies of the compact city as a leading paradigm of sustainable urbanism, adding to the case study design being of a descriptive category, the most relevant source of the data collected was that which contributed significantly to the detailed description and in-depth understanding of the phenomenon of the compact city, namely comprehensive plans, master plans, policy documents, and programs. While the use of the data collection methods varies depending on the research objectives, it is still recommended in all data collection efforts to use several techniques. The use of multiple methods to collect and analyze data is found to be mutually informative in case study research where together they provide a more synergistic and comprehensive view of the issue being studied (Flyvbjerg 2011; Merriam 2009; Stake 2006; Yin 2014, 2017).

3.4.7 Brief on Gothenburg and Helsingborg Gothenburg is the second-largest city in Sweden, after the capital Stockholm, fifth-largest in the Nordic countries, and capital of the Västra Götaland County. It is located by Kattegat, on the West coast of Sweden, in the south-west of Sweden. It has a population of approximately 599,000 in the city center and about 1 million inhabitants in the metropolitan area. Gothenburg is home to many students from all over the world, as there are two universities in the city: the University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology. Gothenburg is in a phase of expansion with a growing population and as a result of increased immigration. The crisis

3 Advances in Compact City Planning and Development …

52

during the 1970s has drastically transformed Gothenburg, from an industrial city to a knowledge and event city, where the two universities have become very important, and the focus on the sustainable development has increased. Helsingborg is located in the Öresund region, exactly where the Øresund straits are narrowest. Around 3.9 million people live and work in this region. Approximately 135,300 people live in Helsingborg. Thanks to its position, Helsingborg is a strategic hub, close to Malmö and Copenhagen. It is a regional center situated within the larger metropolitan regions of Malmö and Copenhagen. It is a former industrial city that has made an effort to regenerate old industrial sites in response to the need for enhanced economic growth in order to contribute to new commercial and cultural activities and to create new urban residential areas while keeping its industrial heritage intact. Its compact city heart offers commercial centers, popular culture and places to meet and for leisure, in addition to number of amenities and service facilities. Table 3.4 summarizes some key figures in relation to the case study cities. In Gothenburg and Helsingborg, as in many other European cities, much of the development has been planned top-down by planners and architects through large-scale developments. However, the small city core developed before the nineteenth century has been left largely untouched. Urbanization with its different dimensions, especially physical (land use change), geographical (population), societal (social and cultural change), and economic (agglomeration) is increasingly shaping the urban state of the two cities through population and employment increase and related land use change. Urban planning is seen by these cities as a valuable force to achieve sustainable development through the compact city strategy. Moreover, these cities are characterized by different levels of compactness and respond differently to its sustainability debate due to the rate of urbanization as a major societal driver.

3.5

Results: Compact City Strategies and Their Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability Benefits

3.5.1 The Core Compact City Principles and Strategies and Their Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability Benefits In the two cities, compact planning and development entails the promotion and creation of densely developed nodes/areas with a mixture of functions and demographics supported by sustainable transportation and green space. These areas/nodes are termed differently and also overlap: “strategic nodes,” “compact development,” “developed areas,” and “intermediate city.” Despite this variation of names, they are built on the same design principles and strategies: development areas with dense, diversified settlement patterns; a plethora of dwellings, workplaces, shops, services, and facilities; and accessible public transportation and green space. As such, they correspond to the compact city ideal in terms of its three sustainability dimensions. Communication lines, and especially railway stations, constitute the backbone of the two cities’ strategic node development, since they determine where expansion should take place. We now take a closer look at the two cities’ plans and development strategies to identify the key dimensions of the compact city and their link to the goals of sustainable development. In this respect, we deem it relevant and useful to include a brief definition of the key design concepts of the compact city.

3.5.1.1 Compactness Generally, compactness proposes the density of the built environment and the intensification of its activities, land-use mixture, diversity, sustainable transportation, and efficient land planning to protect natural and agricultural areas. It is at

Table 3.4 Some key figures about the case study cities Helsingborg 2

Land area

346 km

Population

135,300

Gothenburg 447.8 km² 599,000

City ranking in Sweden by population and size

7th

2nd

Average age

40

39

3.5 Results: Compact City Strategies and Their Environmental …

the core of the Comprehensive Plan for Gothenburg and the Master Plan for Helsingborg with regard to practices through design and development strategies. A denser, more diverse city with a greater mix of uses together with sustainable transportation and green space is what Gothenburg and Helsingborg strive to attain and maintain through policies for sustainable urban development by developing and implementing a number of measures to contribute to the goals of sustainable development. As a widely acknowledged strategy for achieving desirable urban forms, compactness is about contiguity and connectivity, which suggests that future urban development pertaining to the physical dimension of urbanization (land use change) should take place adjacent to existing urban fabrics or structures. Thus, the potential of currently existing building zones should be exploited to enable structural development in existing urban areas in the future based on strategies for inward development. This relates to the intensification of the built form, a major strategy which emphasizes more efficient land use by increasing the densification of development and activity. The intensification approach includes development of less or undeveloped urban land and transformation or redevelopment of previously developed sites, as well as extensions and additions and conversions and subdivisions. Gothenburg City Council (2014a) and Helsingborg (2010a) state that compactness is supported by the need for development strategies because many people want to live and work in the city based on recent forecasts up to 2035 for both cities. An increasing population needs more housing, more workplaces, more services, more facilities, more public transport, and so on. The focus of compactness in the two cities is on concentrated development in the city center and complementary development in and around strategic nodes. The Comprehensive Plan for Gothenburg and the Master Plan for Helsingborg have a lot in common when it comes to their clear aim for the development of the city through an order of development, as well as their growth within the already built-up area. This entails that continued planning should primarily focus on supplementing the built-up city in combination with construction in strategic nodes, meaning building the city from the center outward. Indeed, a comparison of the scales of building objects within Gothenburg showed an increasing scale from Type 1 (emergent compact urban form) to Type 2 (designed dispersed urban form) and then to Type 3 (designed compact urban form) (Lim and Kain 2016). Also, the relative number of buildings found in the five areas studied was highest in Type 1 areas and lowest in Type 2 areas, while in Type 3 areas remained in-between. However, Gothenburg’s Type 3 actually began to resemble Type 1, predicated on the assumption that the whole of Type 3 area would be

53

developed in the same manner as the individual intensification projects. These outcomes are in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan for Gothenburg: the planning of the city will be directed toward complementary development in the built-up areas combined with development at strategic nodes, as well as with the Development Strategy Gothenburg 2035: the city needs and seeks to develop in a sustainable manner by growing within the city that has already been built and around strategic nodes, to reiterate. Gothenburg City Council (2014a) argues that complementary development combined with development at strategic nodes makes effective use of limited land resources, and building in existing built-up areas minimizes the risk of being left with half-completed, less attractive areas. The compact city model is the main strategy used for the planning system of the two cities, and aims at the combination of environmental, economic, and social dimensions toward more sustainable urban development. As observed in the central renewal areas of Helsingborg, a more compact form is evolving through multiple ongoing development projects, which is expanding the center and making it denser, more accessible, and more attractive. Developing from the center outward can satisfy demand for business sites and service facilities, and increased densities and shorter travel distances give more people the opportunity to walk or cycle (Helsingborg 2010a). Around the strategic nodes, the aim is to attain a compact building characterized by diversity of functions (workplaces, housing, facilities, services, etc.) and demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, status, income, etc.) to make urban environments more vibrant and attractive (Helsingborg 2010a). The financing of place regeneration is argued by Helsingborg to be a positive side effect of the decision to embrace compact development in transformation areas. Development in relation to the establishment of businesses and services and new dwellings is highly encouraged, particularly when it targets one of the nodes. According to the Comprehensive Plan for Gothenburg, the city adopts different planning strategies with respect to the staged expansion of the city, namely: • Build and Develop Centrally: A substantial share of future development is planned to take place in central renewal areas. A more compact city will emerge making the city’s center larger and more attractive and accessible, and a mixture of residents, workers, and visitors will create a stimulating environment that draws in new knowledge and service-based companies. Current plan projections indicate that housing and employment growth can be accommodated within central renewal areas by strengthening them with 30,000 new homes and 40,000 new jobs by 2020.

54

• Concentrating on Strategic Nodes: Compact development brings together both functions and people around strategic nodes, creating places that are alive throughout the day. Gothenburg has several strategic nodes in addition to several interchanges where higher densities are being aimed for together with effective accessibilities. • Complement and Mix: The objective is to complement those areas that both are easy to reach by walking and cycling and have good access to public transport with additional homes and workplaces, leading to greater variety and a more vibrant city by enhancing existing urban structures. New development and re-development are planned to contribute to increased diversity (social and functional mix) and vitality in the city districts. • Outer Areas Reserved for Future Consideration: These have future potential for the development of diverse homes and workplaces and are required to achieve a certain level of density based on the feasibility of high-quality public transport. These areas share a common need for significant investment in infrastructure and services. All in all, Gothenburg and Helsingborg are pursuing three directions to attain the compact city, namely: • Develop central and renewal areas. • Make use of what already exists: strategic nodes, intermediate city, etc. • Focus energy and effort where it will make a difference in the context of compactness. According to Lim and Kain (2016), there are three main planning approaches to achieve the compact city model in Swedish cities, including planning by coding, which as aimed at high density and diversity facilitates incremental and individual micro interactions through time and space by multiple actors; planning by design, which involves rationalization and simplification to create compartmentalized urban patterns and is typical for modernistic and top-down planned urban systems and often executed through large-scale site interventions with long-term projections into the future; and planning by design combined with planning by development control, which are often applied in new initiatives to emulate emergent compact city characteristics and indeed focus on density and functional and demographic diversity.

3.5.1.2 Density and Its Relation to Mixed Land Use and Diversity Density is a critical strategy in determining the compact urban form. Urban density refers to the ratio of dwelling units or people to land area. In a recent study, Lim and Kain

3 Advances in Compact City Planning and Development …

(2016) investigated five urban areas in Gothenburg representing the outcomes of the key strategic planning approaches that have been applied historically in the city. Three indicators for compact city form were used for the assessment of dense and diverse built environments: the density of built objects, the scales of built objects, and the distribution of the diversity of built objects. The assessment was thus applied to three kinds of planning outcomes (urban fabrics) resulting from three types of planning approaches: (1) “emergent compact urban form” achieved through planning by coding, (2) “designed dispersed urban form” achieved through planning by design, and (3) “designed compact urban form” achieved through planning by design in combination with planning by development control. Emergent compact urban form is an inner-city urban fabric that has evolved through time by multiple actors’ interactions. Designed dispersed urban form is reductionist and top-down. Designed compact urban form is an inner-city urban fabric where density and diversity have been designed by a number of developers simultaneously. In terms of findings, regarding the density of built objects, the study showed that in Gothenburg the highest density of 37% and 31% in type 1 and the lowest density of 12% in type 2 and the in-between density of 19 and 14% in type 3. These results pertain to five study areas chosen in Gothenburg according to the applied planning approach: rule-based, with 2 areas in Type 1, 1 area in type 2, and 2 areas in Type 3. Concerning the scale of built objects, building footprints of over 750 m2 consisted of high percentage of all buildings in Gothenburg, namely 1500,