Understanding Density in an Uneven City, Santiago de Chile: Implications for Social and Environmental Sustainability

Abstract

Efforts to promote infill development and to raise densities are growing in many cities around the world as a way to encourage urban sustainability. However, in cities polarized along socio-economic lines, the benefits of densification are not so evident. The aim of this paper is to discuss some of the contradictions of densification in Santiago de Chile, a city characterized by socio-spatial disparities. To that end, we first use regression analysis to explain differences in density rates within the city. The regression analysis shows that dwelling density depends on the distance from the city center, socioeconomic conditions, and the availability of urban attributes in the area. After understanding the density profile, we discuss the implications for travel and the distribution of social infrastructures and the environmental services provided by green areas. While, at the metropolitan scale, densification may favor a more sustainable travel pattern, it should be achieved by balancing density rates and addressing spatial differences in the provision of social services and environmental amenities. We believe a metropolitan approach is essential to correct these spatial imbalances and to promote a more sustainable and socially cohesive growth pattern.

Characterizing the inequalities in urban public green space provision in Shenzhen, China

“…This social group is limited in power, capital and wealth. Such findings accord with prior studies that acknowledge less green space cover as a good indication of lower socioeconomic status of the residential areas in Johannesburg of South Africa (Sch€ affler & Swilling, 2013), Delhi of India (Gupta et al, 2012), Milwaukee of USA (Heynen, Perkins, & Roy, 2006), Santiago of Chile (Aquino & Gainza, 2014), Berlin of Germany (Kabisch & Haase, 2014), Brisbane of Australia (Shanahan et al, 2014) and cities of UK (Dempsey, Brown, & Bramley, 2012;Pauleit, Ennos & Golding, 2005). The quality index is negatively correlated with the income variable, housing variables and percentage of float population, but is insignificantly related with the occupation and education variables.…”

“…The scale (district in particular) of analysis differ from that in other studies. For example, previous studies analyze the PGSs provision at community, walking distance, and census scales (Aquino & Gainza, 2014;Dempsey et al, 2012;Kabisch & Haase, 2014;Pauleit et al, 2005;Shanahan et al, 2014). Given the growing body of literature on the neighborhood sociodemographics and PGSs provision, further studies can compare the correlations at different scales among different cities and analyze the policy and social contributors to these relationships.…”

The Distribution and Accessibility of Urban Parks in Beijing, China: Implications of Social Equity

“…Numerous studies have examined the accessibility and usability of urban parks in developed and developing countries [38,[46][47][48][49][50]. Many studies have demonstrated that the distribution of green spaces is often related to the geographical locations and the development history in the urban area [51][52][53][54][55]. These studies, however, failed to link the characteristics of the parks and the urban residents.…”

Mapping neighbourhood outdoor activities: space, time, gender and age

“…It has been widely claimed that compact urban form promotes social life and liveability within the public urban areas and outdoor spaces, and thus enhances social sustainability of communities. These claims include higher sense of safety, intense social interactions, frequent outdoor exchange, reduced social segregation, higher feeling of environmental quality, and lower violence, to name but a few (Jenks 2017;Aquino and Gainza 2014;Raman 2010;Jacobs 2000). However, scholars call for more scientific investigations and empirical evidence from across the globe in order to gain a fine-tuned understanding from the relationship between compact urban form and urban social sustainability (Jenks 2009;Burgess 2000).…”