Carfree
DEVELOPMENT AND THE PARADOX OF INTENSIFICATION
Mr
PhD Student (Healthy Cities &
Urban Policy Centre and Centre for Transport & Society)
University of the West of England, School of the Built Environment, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY steve.melia@uwe.ac.uk.
From the complex, contested evidence, it would seem that
urban intensification can, and usually does, reduce per capita car travel. The relationship is not proportional however,
so a doubling of population density is unlikely to halve per capita car travel,
for example. It follows that a policy
which may be necessary to promote overall sustainability may simultaneously
worsen local environments, by increasing concentrations of cars and
traffic. To resolve this paradox of
intensification would require more radical measures to restrain car use:
measures which climate change may force up the policy agenda. Carfree development is one such measure.
Larger carfree developments are becoming more common in some
European countries, although examples in the
The concept of carfree development as
a specific response to the problems created by growing car use is relatively
recent – beginning in
The number of carfree developments
across
Through many changes of labels and
contexts, two opposing tendencies have endured in the theory and practice of
land use planning: towards dispersal of development, or urban intensification. A vast literature has emerged around the
question of the influence of the built form, and particularly density, on
travel demand. One of the few points on
which proponents of both would agree is that dispersed suburban neighbourhoods
tend to be associated with higher car use than denser urban neighbourhoods. In the UK, the average ‘exurbanite’ drives
25% more miles in a year than the average suburbanite and 44% more than the
average urbanite (Independent Transport Commission 2004), a pattern which has
been observed across many developed countries (see, for example: Handy et al.
2005).
The most fundamental differences in
this debate relate to the direction of causality and the nature of and
appropriate policy responses. Some have
purported to show a causal relationship from built environment factors to
travel demand (1989). Others argue that
rising incomes (and declining real costs of motoring) have enabled individual
agents to exercise their preferences in favour of car ownership and the lower
density suburban and exurban living which depend upon it (Glaeser, Kahn 2003).
Some more recent studies have
identified the issue of self-selection – the tendency for people who favour
non-car means to choose more accessible urban locations, and vice versa for those
preferring to travel by car – and attempted to control for it. One of the technically more sophisticated
ones, conducted in
During the 1990s this debate began to
influence planning policy across much of the Western world. Although the tenor of policy in the
The proportion of new dwellings built on brownfield land, including conversions, which was hovering between 54% and 58% during the late 1990s, rose to 77% in 2005 (DCLG 2007). The average density of new residential development also increased to around 40 d.p.h. over the same time.
Government policy is not the only
factor influencing these changes.
Average household size fell from 2.91 in 1971 to 2.30 in 2000, with the
proportion of single person households nearly doubling to 32% (ONS 2005a). The proportion of new dwellings in the form
of flats has risen to 34% in 2003/4, although the average size of new dwellings
(at least in numbers of rooms, although the rooms may be smaller) continues to
rise (ONS 2005b). The reversal of
declining urban populations, which started in
Breheny (1997), who did not live to
see the sort of changes which are now occurring, proposed three tests for what
he termed “the compaction case”: feasibility, veracity (will it achieve the
benefits claimed for it?) and acceptability. A number of studies since then
have sought to test these claims empirically.
Mike Jenks (2000) refers to Breheny’s criteria in considering the
acceptability of intensification. His
paper was one of a number resulting from a 13 year study for the Department of
the Environment beginning in 1981, which included a national survey of all
planning authorities and 12 case studies of urban, suburban and rural areas
subject to intensification.
Jenks found “no straightforward
answer to whether or not intensification will be acceptable”. In general,
intensification of activity causes more concern than intensification of
development (some developments will of course, entail both). Intensification is considered more
problematic in suburban areas and by residents of higher social status who feel
they have more to lose. Some significant
benefits were also perceived by many residents, particularly those in urban
areas. Of particular relevance to this
review was the finding that concerns were:
“mostly related to traffic congestion,
but also…air pollution and noise, as well as worries over the loss of green
space. Traffic is a particular problem
in all urban areas, and equally, if not more so, in intensified areas. However, the research indicated slightly lower
increases in levels of car ownership in intensified areas than nationally,
suggesting that intensification might contribute to a modal shift away from the
private car.” (Jenks 2000p.245)
In the same volume, Williams (2000)
describes a longitudinal study of the effects of intensification in the
Both of these studies illustrate what
we may term the paradox of
intensification. A relationship,
possibly even a causal relationship, does exist between the built environment
and transport or mobility. Certain built
forms do appear to influence trip lengths, possibly their frequency and modal
choice. However, the relationship is
neither straightforward nor, in respect of residential density,
proportional. In a study of English
urban regions, Ian Gordon (1997) found that a doubling of densities was
associated with a 7% reduction in energy-weighted miles of travel to work. Different data and methods will produce
different estimates, but none of the studies reviewed would suggest that a doubling of density can realistically
expect to halve per capita car
mileage. It follows therefore that, in
the absence of more radical measures, intensification, whilst contributing to global
sustainability, in the localities where it occurs, will increase congestion, traffic
noise and air pollution – factors generally considered detrimental to quality
of life by local residents.
When viewed in this way, these implications
seem fairly obvious but it is interesting to note how many commentators:
academic researchers as well as politicians and campaigners, acknowledge only
the one half of the paradox which supports their standpoint. Echenique and Homewood, for example, claim
that intensification would “increase congestion and pollution” and state that
there is “no significant difference in terms of transport sustainability
between urban and suburban areas” (2003, p.40) despite the evidence in their
own study that suburban residents own more cars and drive significantly more
than urban residents. Power (LSE 2006)
on the other hand cites the
There is evidence of resistance to
urban intensification from local communities, particularly in suburban
areas. Williams notes that residents in
Bromley and
As the effects of intensification and
new development generally are cumulative, and the policy change in
The terms ‘carfree development’ and
‘carfree housing’ have been defined in different ways. As motor vehicles are ubiquitous across most
of the developed world, such developments inevitably involve some degree of
compromise with vehicular access. Morris
(2005) following Heller (2005) draws a distinction between “visually car-free”
where motor vehicles are excluded from a core residential area, although
parking may be provided underground or on the periphery, and “car-free” where
“little or no provision” is made for vehicle infrastructure or residential
parking.
The advantages claimed for carfree
developments can be grouped as follows:
1. Local
benefits, accruing mainly to residents of carfree areas
2. Benefits
to wider surrounding areas
3. Benefits
to the global environment
The first group may accrue from
traffic and parking separation, regardless of car ownership or use. The second group may accrue from a local
concentration of people living without cars, even if they were already living
in that way somewhere else, whereas the third group – of growing concern,
related particularly to climate change – depends entirely on behavioural
change.
Some kinds of development may achieve
some but not all of these benefits. For
example, traffic-free residential areas built over underground parking of a
level typical for the area concerned (e.g. Greenwich Millennium Village) may
achieve the first but not the second or third benefits (unless the separation
of parking is sufficient to significantly discourage car use). The small-scale ‘car free housing’
implemented in the London Borough of Camden probably makes a modest
contribution to two and three, but often with no direct benefit to its
occupants.
The working definition proposed for
this study seeks to reflect all these potential benefits. Except where indicated otherwise, ‘carfree
development’ will be used to mean residential or mixed use developments which:
• Provide
a traffic free immediate environment
• Are
designed to facilitate movement by non-car means
• Offer
no parking or limited parking removed from the immediate residential area
The terms “traffic-free” and “limited
parking” will clearly require judgements, which may be relative; thus “limited
parking” would suggest levels lower than the minimum required to accommodate
typical car ownership for the location and housing mix.
As this definition does not preclude
car ownership amongst some residents, a further distinction must be drawn between
‘carfree development’ and ‘carfree living’.
To achieve the full range of benefits claimed, at least some of the
residents of any carfree area must be prepared to live without owning a car.
The broadest study of European
carfree areas was conducted by Scheurer (2001), who surveyed three in
This study began with a 2,400 mile
cycle ride to study Vauban and its context, through observations and interviews
with planners, residents and voluntary organisations ( see:Melia 2006). Although residents and planners prefer not to
use the term, most of the residential streets in Vauban are carfree as defined
here. Vehicles may travel through them
at walking pace to pick up and set down, but not to park. Households must either make an annual
declaration that they have no car (45% had in Scheurer’s survey) or purchase a
peripheral parking space for 17,500€ (£12,500) plus a monthly fee. Nobis (2003), who surveyed the development
again more recently found not surprisingly that carfree respondents expressed
greater satisfaction with the arrangements than car owners. Enforcement of
parking regulations is fairly lax, and parking issues do sometimes cause
conflict amongst residents, but these problems do not appear to detract from
the carfree nature of the residential streets – in which moving vehicles are
rarely seen.
Vauban’s population is weighted towards
professionals with a high degree of environmental awareness and relatively
large number of children. The streets
are particularly used by children cycling and playing, often unsupervised. This occurred to a noticeably greater extent
than the more conventional home zones open to through traffic elsewhere in
Nobis found that 81% of the carfree
households had previously owned a car; 57% gave them up on moving there. A similar pattern was observed in
Since 2000 the policy framework in
the
There are some signs of interest
amongst a few
Despite these advances, the author’s
dealings with developers suggest that in general, scepticism about the
existence of demand for what is perceived to be a radically new product is
currently an obstacle to carfree development in the
Current
Car ownership is strongly associated
with life stages, typically increasing with children and reducing after
retirement (Chatterjee, Beecroft et al. 2001).
Differences between age groups may also reflect a ‘cohort effect’ as
today’s pensioners, for example, spent most of their adult lives before the era
of mass car ownership (Lanzendorf 2003).
Possession of driving licences is still lowest amongst older women,
although it has been rising rapidly in recent years (DfT 2001).
The geographical distribution in the
In a study of attitudes towards
driving in Scotland, Dudleston et al (2005) segment car drivers into four, and
non drivers into three clusters. Two
groups are particularly relevant here.
“Car sceptics” (10% of the sample) are positive non-drivers who cycle
more, but interestingly use buses less, than average. They tend to be younger, with high environmental
awareness. “Aspiring environmentalists”
(16%) are drivers who tend to find driving stressful and are most open to modal
shift, cycling and using buses more than the average. They tend to be from higher social classes,
younger than the average, with more women.
From Reutter (1996) it seems the
profile of non-car owners in
The easiest and most direct way of
assessing potential demand for a new product is to examine existing demand for
similar products. In the
In the absence of direct comparisons
the issue may be explored through hypothetical questions – possibly using
stated preference techniques – or inference: from past behaviour, attitudes,
experience overseas or British developments which satisfy some but not all of
the criteria. All of these approaches
are problematic.
Stated preference techniques are
often used in housing research, generally relating to trade-offs or willingness
to pay for particular attributes. Such
techniques suffer from various problems of bias (Kim, et al. 2005) and
ultimately offer no particular resolution to the problems of hypothetical questioning. As the aim here was not quantification of a
choice, a more straightforward method was chosen, involving a first stage of
questionnaire surveys, which would seek volunteers for a second stage of
qualitative interviews to explore motivations and causality in more depth. To address the challenges associated with
hypothetical questions, the questionnaires were structured to enable
cross-referencing of questions concerning actual behaviour and future intentions
– both hypothetical and more concrete.
The German examples and research on
attitudes in the
This study explores the housing and
transport circumstances, behaviour and preferences, and then seeks to explore
the potential demand amongst these groups for moving to, and living in, new
carfree neighbourhoods.
The final stage will analyse the
implications of these findings for transport and spatial planning policy in the
At the time of writing, the first
stage – the questionnaire surveys – had just been completed.
A probabilistic national sample would
have exceeded the available resources, so accepting a limited ability to
generalise, the three target groups were sought through the following:
Bloomsbury and Kings Cross wards were
chosen as they have some of the lowest car ownership in the country (32% and
34% of adults – 2001 Census) coupled with median household incomes above the
national average and high proportions of home owners without cars (56% and
52%). Thus these areas were expected to
contain high proportions of people living without a car by choice – influenced
by local transport and built environment factors rather than financial
necessity.
Poole Quarter was cited in the Department
for Transport’s (2005) good practice guide to residential travel plans. It was nearly half completed at the time of
the survey in September 2007. It was
considered of particular interest for the carfree limiters.
The online survey was publicised from
early 2007 through email newsletters and web sites of 10 organisations including:
the
932 people responded to the online
survey. Two thirds of these came from
cycling organisations, particularly the
Although precise comparisons with
national statistics could not be made, the respondents clearly drove less than
average (25% drove most days) and cycled considerably more (56% on most days) –
this was true of the ‘environmentalists’ as well as the cycling members.
199 (9%) of the 2200
57 (25%) of the 228 questionnaires
distributed around Poole Quarter had been returned by October 2007 (the
ultimate return rate will be higher).
The sample was weighted towards the 20 – 29 age group (26%) and social
tenants/shared owners (54%) – reflecting the ‘front-loading’ of affordable
housing on the site. As a result,
household income levels were low (median slightly below £20,000). Most of the properties, mainly flats, are
allocated one parking space: two thirds of the sample had one car; only 15% had
none. Considering only those whose
household composition had remained the same, in 9 cases car ownership reduced
on moving there; in no case had it increased.
Similarly, most respondents reported
lower car use and/or higher levels of walking, bus and cycle use (they were not
asked to quantify ‘more’ or ‘less’) following their move to Poole Quarter. Interestingly, when asked whether they
believed the travel plan was working, more people disagreed than agreed. There are a number of possible explanations
for this apparent inconsistency: the central location has probably influenced
people’s travel behaviour; people may also consider conflicts over parking
spaces as a sign of a plan ‘not working’.
These issues will be explored at the next stage.
Based on self-reported categorisation
(which may need to be further explored at the next phase) the statement “I live
without a car by choice” defines the carfree choosers. The definition of carfree possibles contains
two elements, relating to declared attitude and past behaviour. Drivers who ticked “I would live without a
car if circumstances changed” and who have also lived without a car in the
past, can be classified as carfree possibles.
Using the above definitions, the numbers of the first two target groups
are as follows:
|
|
Carfree Choosers |
|
Carfree Possibles |
||
|
Online Survey |
221 |
(24%) |
|
212 |
(23%) |
|
|
104 |
(52%) |
|
10 |
(5%) |
|
|
5 |
(9%) |
|
1 |
(2%) |
The last three of these six
subsamples are too small to permit any meaningful statistical analysis. In
Comparing the two target groups with
the rest of the sample is most illuminating within the online survey, where the
large sample reveals more statistically significant associations (differences
referred to here are significant at the 95% level unless stated
otherwise). To some extent they reflect
more general differences between car owners and non-car owners, although this
is not always the case, particularly when considering preferences.
Compared to the rest of the sample,
the carfree choosers were younger
(51% under 40) with a lower household income (62% under £30,000) although this
was partly due to the higher proportion living in single person households
(27%). Fewer had children (20%); more of
them were renting (38%) although most (56%) were home owners. More of them lived in flats (29%) and fewer in
detached houses (8%). 91% lived in towns
or cities.
There are fewer statistically
significant associations in the
The carfree choosers from the online
survey rarely drive, travel less as car passengers, cycle more (64% most days)
and use all forms of public transport more than the other groups. In
In the questions dealing with
advantages and problems of where you live, and preferences on moving house, the
carfree choosers exhibited the same tendencies observable when urban
respondents are compared to rural respondents.
In the online survey, accessible transport, close to city centre and
close to shops were the top three advantages positively associated with carfree
choosers, whereas close to countryside, good schools and available parking were
negative. Too much traffic in the immediate
area was the greatest problem identified (by 60%).
There were fewer significant
differences in the
In terms of housing type, the carfree
choosers were more likely to prefer or consider terraced houses (
The carfree possibles in the online survey emerge as a very different
group from the carfree choosers. In most
of the comparisons below they fall between the carfree choosers and the ‘other’
group, with the exception of income (66% over £30,000) where they were
marginally the highest of the three groups.
Compared to the carfree choosers the carfree possibles were: older (66%
over 40), more likely to be living in a family (52%), with children (42%) and
working full-time (66%). More of them
lived in rural areas (23%), in detached (26%) or semi-detached (35%) houses,
mainly (83%) as home owners.
They drive more than the carfree
choosers (19% on most days, 43% occasionally) but less than the ‘other’ group
(and probably substantially less than the general population). They cycle almost as much as the carfree
choosers (62% on most days). They use
trains more (10% on most days) than the others but less than the carfree
choosers. Their regular bus use was low
(4% on most days) but occasional bus use (59%) was higher than the ‘other’
group.
When asked about the advantages of
the area where they live, their responses nearly always fell between the other
two groups. Thus they were less likely
than the carfree choosers but more likely than the others to cite: proximity to
a town or city centre, accessible public transport, and close to shops; vice
versa for close to countryside, quiet road and available parking. The same pattern applies to the problems,
with too much traffic in the immediate area (49%) being the most cited.
This pattern also applies to their
preferences on moving house: less likely than the carfree choosers but more
likely than the others to prefer or consider terraced houses (69%), flats (40%)
and to prefer urban living (24%). Of the
31% considering a move, two thirds stated that they could afford to buy –
similar to the ‘other’ group and substantially more than the carfree choosers.
The
In some respects such as age
distribution, car limiters were similar to the total sample. Some differences such as fewer with children
(25%) were evident but not significant due to the small sample size. Some differences were significant however: the
car limiters included nine of the ten private sector tenants in the sample and
ten of the 13 households earning over £30,000.
They were more likely to cite proximity to work and less likely to cite
allocated parking as an advantage.
Although the differences were not
significant, 21 reported walking more and 8 reported cycling more since
moving. Interestingly, they used buses
less than the rest of the sample: only one on most days; eight ticked
never. This corresponds with other
findings that bus use tends to be associated with lower income groups (this
relationship may not apply in inner
The online and
Some
European countries have begun to develop ‘carfree neighbourhoods’, where
parking is limited and traffic is only allowed at walking pace for pick-up or
deliveries. They are designed around
public transport, walking and cycling.
If such a neighbourhood were built in this country, would you:
The following table illustrates the
responses. The second column combines the
first two possible responses (“keen to move there even if it meant moving some
distance”, and: “consider moving there if it were somewhere convenient”) Categories are combined or omitted where
sample sizes were particularly small:
|
Survey/Groups |
Keen to move there |
Keen/Consider if convenient |
|
Online – Carfree Choosers |
24% |
89% |
|
Online – Carfree Possibles |
14% |
84% |
|
Online – Others |
5% |
59% |
|
|
6% |
54% |
|
|
2% |
41% |
|
|
|
16% |
|
|
|
24% |
Only in the online survey are the
differences statistically significant.
Again this is only partly due to the larger sample size – the magnitudes
of the differences are also greater. The
positive responses from the first two target groups, and from the first two
surveys generally, are consistent with the suppositions which led to the
selection of these populations and target groups.
Over two-thirds of potential movers
in
Given the smaller sample size, the
Although the travel plan may have
brought benefits such as lower traffic generation to the wider area, direct
benefits to the residents would be more difficult to identify. A comparison with Vauban is apposite
here. Whereas some Vauban residents
expressly moved there in order to benefit from the carfree residential
environment, it would be difficult to imagine anyone (and no responses
suggested this) moving to Poole Quarter because
of the travel plan. The parking
arrangements were viewed by most respondents as a problem, and several also
referred to traffic problems and an unsuitable environment for children to play
in. In this respect, this form of
development illustrates the paradox of intensification: it brings wider
benefits, but at the expense of some negative factors for the immediate
residents.
Under what circumstances expressions
of interest in carfree neighbourhoods might translate into decisions to move is
a question which can only be tentatively addressed at this stage. The positive responses from the carfree
choosers were at least consistent with their current behaviour. For the carfree possibles the situation is
more complicated. Amongst the changes
necessary to live without a car, 58% answering the question in the online
survey cited improved public transport, a factor which would need to be
addressed when planning a carfree development (although not necessarily
possible to everyone’s satisfaction).
Other factors related to personal circumstances, which might or might
not change sufficiently to enable people to give up their car ownership. If the Vauban model were followed, however, car
ownership and some car use would still be possible.
There are significant positive
associations between each of the advantages online respondents cited concerning
their current locations and the corresponding factors they would seek when
moving house. So for example, people who
ticked ‘accessible public transport’ as an advantage of their current location
in question 7, were more likely to seek somewhere with accessible public
transport when moving house (question 22).
Statistical analysis of
questionnaires is generally only a starting point when considering questions of
causality. The findings so far have
raised a number of such questions to be explored during the next stages,
particularly related to the reasons for the travel behaviour and preferences
expressed by the respondents.
The preferences of the target groups
in respect of flats, terraced/town houses, urban living and accessibility
factors when choosing where to live could all be considered facilitative for
developers and planning authorities, since the levels of accessibility and
public transport needed to support carfree neighbourhoods would be easier to
provide in denser urban developments. It
also suggests that accessibility and public transport would be particularly
important in attracting home buyers and tenants to new carfree developments.
This study will not be able to
quantify the size of the target groups, and by extension the size of the
potential market for carfree developments at national or regional levels. Further research, with the resources to
conduct probabilistic national or regional samples, could and should seek to
address these questions.
Ultimately, research cannot establish
beyond doubt whether people would or would not exercise a particular housing or
transport choice, but it can help to identify the types of people and the
circumstances most likely to facilitate such choices. The evidence from these surveys does appear
to suggest that the travel behaviour of even the population segments most
committed to reducing car use can still be influenced by the circumstances in
which they live. To the extent that
carfree neighbourhoods could present more attractive and facilitative
circumstances, they would offer one potential solution to the paradox of
intensification, with benefits to the local, national and global environments.
Acknowledgements
The author is indebted to his
supervisors
References
BREHENY, M., 1997. Urban compaction: feasible and acceptable? Cities, 14(4), pp. 209-217.
CARFREE
CHATTERJEE, K., BEECROFT, M., LYONS, G. and MARSDEN, G., 2001. Transport Visions, Land Use Planning. 3. Landor Publ.
COHEN, N., 2005. Second time round the block. The Observer, .
DARGAY, J.M., 2001. The effect of income on car ownership: evidence of asymmetry. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 35(9), pp. 807-821.
DCLG,
2007. Land Use Change in
DETR, 2000. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing.
DFT, 2005. Making Residential Travel Plans Work: Good practice guidelines for new development.
DFT,
2004. National travel survey : 2002
(revised July 2004).
DFT, 2001. Older Drivers: a literature review. 25. Department for Transport.
DMAG,
2006. PayCheck 2006: Unequivalised and
Equivalised Household Income. DMAG 2006/34.
DUDLESTON, A., HEWITT, E., STRADLING, S. and ANABLE, J., 2005. Public Perceptions Of Travel Awareness - Phase 3. Scottish Executive Research.
GLAESER,
E.L. and
GORDON,
HANDY,
S., CAO, X. and MOKHTARIAN, P.L., 2005. Correlation or causality between the
built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from
HELLER,
M., 2005-last update, carfree projects, carfree vacation destinations & large
pedestrian areas - in
INDEPENDENT
TRANSPORT COMMISSION, 2004. Suburban
future.
JENKS, M.,
2000. The Acceptability of Urban Intensification. In: K. WILLIAMS, M. JENKS
and
KIM,
J., PAGLIARA, F. and
LANZENDORF, M., 2003. Mobility biographies. A new perspective for understanding travel behaviour, Conference paper. 10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, , pp. 10–15.
LEISHMAN,
C., ASPINALL, P., MUNRO, M. and WARREN,
F., 2004. Preferences, quality and choice
in new-build housing.
LSE,
2006. The
MELIA, S., 2006. On the Road to Sustainability - Transport and Carfree Living in Frieburg. Report for W.H.O. Healthy Cities Collaborating Centre edn. www.stevemelia.co.uk/vauban.htm: University of the West of England.
MORRIS, D., 2005. Car-Free Development: The Potential For Community Travel Plans. Universities Transport Study Group.
NEWMAN,
P. and KENWORTHY, J.R., 1989. Cities and automobile dependence : a sourcebook.
NOBIS, C., 2003. The impact of car-free housing districts on mobility behaviour – Case study, E. BERIATOS, C.A. BREBBIA, H. COCCOSSIS and A. KUNGOLOS, eds. In: International Conference on Sustainable Planning and Development, 2003 2003, WIT pp701-720.
ODPM,
2005. State of the cities : a progress
report to the delivering sustainable communities summit.
ONS, 2005a-last update, 2001 census. Available: www.statistics.gov.uk [December, 2005].
ONS,
2005b. Social trends.
REUTTER, U., 1996. Car-free households: who lives without an automobile today? World Transport Policy & Practice, 2(4), pp. 32.
SCHEURER,
J., 2001. Urban Ecology, Innovations in Housing Policy and the Future of
Cities: Towards Sustainability in Neighbourhood Communities. PhD edn.
WILLIAMS,
K., 2000. Does Intensifying Cities Make them More Sustainable? In: K. WILLIAMS,
M. JENKS and