2013

Erik-Jan van Oosten

ENP-32306

4/26/2013

Comparing Landscape Urbanism and New

Urbanism from a behavioral perspective

1

Contents

Introduction: ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

Goal: .................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Theory: ............................................................................................................................................................... 2

List of social practices: ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Analysis: ............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Spatial analysis: ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Travel ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Food consumption ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Leisure ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

Shopping ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

Work. ............................................................................................................................................................. 8

Gardening ...................................................................................................................................................... 8

Social contacts ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Results: .............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Clarification of the scale: ............................................................................................................................. 10

Conclusion: ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

Discussion: ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

References: ...................................................................................................................................................... 11

Introduction: The transition towards a more resilient, sustainable urban environment is a much debated

issue within the realm urban design (Sherman, 2010). There are two main movements that both

envision a new paradigm that society should aim for (Pérez, 2011). On one side there are the New

Urbanists who claim that a higher density leads to more livable streets, more use of public transport,

a lower CO2 footprint and more support for urban services. This movement started in 1961 with

Jane Jacobs and her book called “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” which mainly

focused on the social issues (Jacobs, 1961). This vision was adopted later on by Leon Krier and

given an ecological dimension.

On the other side we find Landscape Urbanism which aims at achieving low density, green

and to large extent self-sufficient cities. They claim that suburbia are a better typology for

adaptation and mitigation measures. The originator of this movement was Frank Lloyd Wright who

designed a hypothetical town called “Broadacre City” in 1932 in which every family owns one acre

of land (Wright, 1935). This assures the possibility for self-sufficiency on an almost individual basis.

This variation of the “American Dream” is closely linked to various grass-root initiatives like the

2

earthship-movement and living with nature ideologies but also in academic community, proponents

like James Corner, Rem Koolhaas and Charles Waldheim (Waldheim, 2006) regard the Landscape

Urbanist view as the new paradigm for sustainability, especially in Harvard this paradigm is widely

supported (Neyfakh, 2011).

This debate mainly takes place between architects, spatial planners and landscape architects

who tend to look at space and problem solving in a different way than social scientists. The

discussion is broader than just the "greenness" of the behaviour of the inhabitants. Also aesthetics,

ecology, scarcity of space, traffic and economic viability are debated issues in both paradigms. To

narrow the scope of this research only the capability of both Landscape Urbanism and New

Urbanism to provide alternatives for sustainable behaviour and thus alter the lifestyles of the actors

will be investigated.

Goal: The goal is to compare the New Urbanist (NU) concept and the Landscape Urbanism (LU)

concept from a social practices perspective and find out which one theoretically leads to greener

behavior.

Theory: The research of Connolly & Prothero

(2008) shows the limits of the current way

society is organized. It is hard for actors to

behave in line with their own beliefs. This is a

problem of a discrepancy between the actor

and the structure: What actors do depends,

according to Spaargaren, on the systems of

provisioning and the lifestyle choices

(Spaargaren & van Vliet, 2000). The system of

provisioning is in this case the urban form and

the features it provides are the possibilities of

action. The aim of a good system is to empower the actors to make the choices that are in line with

their ideals. The question is: Is Landscape Urbanism or New Urbanism more effective in improving

the provisioning side of the city?

A problem with the Structuration theory as devised by Giddens and further developed by

Spaargaren as social practices theory (Spaargaren, 2003) is that of the inconsistent results in the

lifestyle segment. Multiple "milieux of action" result in substantially varying results (Dunn, 2008).

Figure 1. The social practices model.

3

This will pose no threat to the validity of this

research because it does focus on comparing two

distinct "milieux of action", not society as a whole.

Therefore this inconsistency in the model is not a

problem; it makes it more suitable for this research.

In Spaargaren's model the systems of

provisioning are the whole of society, not just a

small part of that. For the analysis of the different

urban forms the model has to take into account

that there are two possible actions for the actors:

the green choice as provided by the design and the

regular, less feasible choice (external factors and common practices). This duality simplifies the

issue of choice by assuming that there is only one, best option provided by the structure and one

best alternative to each option. For example: The option “commuting by public transport” has

“commuting by car” as best, most common alternative. Figure 2 shows the modification of the

model to reflect this ability to choose between the provided option (green) and an alternative (red).

The best paradigm is the one that not only provides the best options for the actors but also

discourages the alternatives.

List of social practices: Central to Spaargaren’s model are the social practices which are the result of the lifestyle

choices on one hand and the systems of provisioning on the other. There are an infinite number of

possible social practices and the mentioned social practices in Spaargaren’s original model should

be regarded as examples, not as all available choices.

To compare LU and NU in a meaningful manner it is important to select a representative list

of social practices. The practices that are selected are the ones that are most common in Dutch daily

lives (SCP, 2011) and are manipulable by urban form. Watching television for example is one of the

most common social practices but it is not a good indicator because there are no differences in the

provisioning side.

The 7 selected practices are: travel, food consumption, leisure, work, shopping, gardening

and social contacts. Unfortunately some overlap was unavoidable: Travel is an intrinsic part of

many social practices and so is food consumption.

It is assumed that the outcome of every social practice can be summed to calculate the total

effective impact on the lifestyle of the actor. Consistency between the different practices is

neglected to not over-complicate the research. So it is possible that a high amount of car use which

Figure 2. Adapted social practices model with implementation of alternative choices.

Travel

Work

Leisure

Gardening

Contacts

Shopping

4

remains unchallenged in the Landscape Urbanism paradigm is compensated for by more food

awareness and greener food consumption.

Analysis: How the 7 practices are implemented by both of the provisioning structures and their

relation to the actor are investigated in this chapter. The core of both paradigms however is urban

form. Therefore a spatial analysis will first clarify both design approaches.

Spatial analysis:

The design principles by NU and LU are used to visualize a map of a "typical neighbour-

hood" for further clarification of both paradigms.

Figure 3. Landscape Urbanism

The Landscape Urbanism map has a large amount of green space. Where New Urbanism ad-

vocates layering uses and multi-use places the Landscape Urbanism leaves that job to nature. Water

retention, urban cooling, biodiversity, food production, improved air quality and health benefits are

all being obtained by giving space to a green agenda. Direct connection to the road is important

because the goal is to combine the high service level of living in the city centre with the spacious

qualities of living in the periphery.

5

Figure 4. New Urbanism

The New Urbanism map consists of mainly 4 to 6 storey buildings. High density is needed to

provide as much services as possible within cycling and walking distance. The neighbourhood is

highly permeable for cyclists and pedestrians to promote these practices. The inverse strategy is

applied on car usage; the roads do often have a dead-end to discourage car travel. There is always a

shortage of parking space to further discourage travelling by car. The buildings are mainly accessi-

ble by public transport and cycling/walking. Green spaces are mostly concentrated in public parks

because the lack of space. By literally minimizing the footprint of the city it is argued that compact

city planning leaves more space for “real” nature to grow.

Travel

Actors have a preference to the closest option as behavioural studies have shown (Wansink

et al, 2006). This is important to keep in mind when planning infrastructure. Infrastructure is a

determining factor for the feasibility of certain modes of travel. Spatial characteristics such as

connectivity are pivotal when it comes to walkability of a neighbourhood (Shriver, 1997). There

have been found significant correlations with the availability of sidewalks and bicycle paths and

their usage (Ewing et al, 2003). Also the presence of speed bumps and dead ends can discourage car

6

travel (Maat et al, 2005). Another measure is reducing the amount of parking spaces (Shoup, 2005)

The three main strategies (Maat et al, 2005) to reduce the impact of travel are: 1. The travel

time is minimized, 2. The benefits are maximized or 3. The activity patterns are optimized.

New Urbanism focuses on the minimization of the travel time by advocating mixed-use and

thus decreasing the travel distances between the different functions. Landscape Urbanism on the

other hand maximizes the benefits of the land uses by promoting large shopping malls and business

parks. From the perspective of maximizing the utility of the actor, car travel is an excellent,

empowering mode of transport. The gasoline consumption increases in less dense areas, but also the

number of traffic jams and air pollution decreases. There is however a strong link between health

and travel. Less dense areas are significantly associated with obesity and higher BMIs (Ewing et al,

2003). There is no unambiguous answer, but high density is likely to be preferable to lower density

when it comes to travel.

Food consumption

There are two, interlinked, aspects that are of importance for the effects of urban form on

food consumption. One is the amount of food that is this consumed, the other is the impact of the

food that is consumed. The environmental damage is the amount multiplied by the impact

(Spaargaren & Van Koppen, 2013). The omnipresent availability of food in dense urban areas may

lead to a higher consumption. But also the opposite may be true: the fact that it takes a 30 minute

car drive to the supermarket may lead to building large supplies of food indoors, which may lead to

more consumption. There has been no research on this subject so it is assumed that the first

argument about the omnipresence of food out-weights the food-harvesting in the suburb.

The impact of the food that is produced is reflected in the actor’s choice. The awareness of

the actor determines to which degree the "greenness" of a product matters in the process of

choosing the right product. The Landscape Urbanism paradigm has a clear advantage because of the

aim to re-establish the link between people and their food. Growing food and living in a green

environment are generally seen as awareness-raisers (Goodman, 2002)

Leisure

Leisure is a general term for a wide range of activities. Most of the leisure time is spent

indoors (Robinson, 1969) which means most of the leisure activities are not influenced by urban

form. The outdoor activities can be roughly subdivided in two parts: extensive and intensive leisure.

Extensive leisure consists of walking, cycling, fishing and other placid practices. Intensive leisure

consists of more energetic activities such as scating, jogging, and surfing. The more peaceful

neighbourhood of Landscape Urbanism generally better accommodates the extensive leisure

activities while the opportunities of intensive leisure are bigger in neighbourhoods of New

7

Urbanism. Only when it is determined if one type of leisure is preferable to the other, a qualitative

conclusion can be drawn.

Another way of looking at the provisioning of leisure is by analysing the infrastructure.

When all cycle paths and sidewalks of LU are compared to all the cycle paths and sidewalks from

NU we find that New Urbanism provides a substantial larger amount of paths. To conclude: the

promotion of outdoor activities is slightly higher in the New Urbanist paradigm.

Shopping

The practice of shopping has, from a utilitarian perspective, become a redundant part of our

daily lives. Shopping in the sense of "getting goods" can easily be replaced by online alternatives.

There is however a social component to the practice of shopping. The actor sees shopping as an

intrinsic part of its lifestyle, not as a way to gather goods.

The importance of the social side of shopping has not been agreed upon and ranges from

"You are what you buy" to "just utilitarian and some hedonistic needs". What is regarded as true is

that shopping has a social side that can't be left out of the equation.

Landscape Urbanism amplifies current, diverging shopping trends: bigger, centralized

shopping centres with all multinational brands represented and the smaller, informal and artisanal

enterprises. The big malls profit from the car-oriented infrastructure and low urban density. It

becomes worthwhile to drive to these big stores that got everything than drive 10 minutes less to a

small neighbourhood store. The local scale is promoted by offering space for small start-ups.

Houses usually have a garage or shed. Selling your own vegetables or starting a wood workshop are

viable possibilities for small hobbyists that want to contribute to society. Steve Jobs for example

started in such a garage with the fabrication of computers.

New urbanism attenuates the current shopping trend. The large malls are not

pedestrian/cyclist friendly and often remotely located which makes them hard to reach. The small

companies often have problems with their start-up costs due to high rent/ground prices. This leads

to a dominance of medium sized shops and companies. The shopping behaviour of an actor living in

a Landscape Urbanist world will consist of less frequent but more intense shopping experiences.

The New Urbanist way of shopping is more frequent because the actor will be confronted with

shops more often in its daily life, but will be less intense. Because the New Urbanist dweller will

have more choice where and when to shop the actor is more empowered to choose for the

sustainable option.

8

Work.

The practice of work is to a large extent comparable to that of the practice of shopping.

Shops compete in the same way to get costumers as companies compete to get employees. The

difference is firstly that it is far easier for the actor to go to a different store than to switch jobs. The

high effort/prize the actor has to pay to change its behaviour means that the provisioning side has to

come up with something that is worthwhile.

Secondly, unlike the case of shopping, LU and NU don't envision a sustainable future for

work. LU assumes that people drive to an unspecified business park and NU sees the whole urban

population practicing in local jobs in the tertiary sector. The lack of emphasis on work can be

explained because city planning has a limited impact the work situation and it is, as stated before,

very hard to convince the actor to change or even challenge its working behaviour. New Urbanism

nudges the actor to work more local while Landscape Urbanism does not promote nor discourages

working practices.

Gardening

The practice of gardening serves multiple purposes in the Landscape Urbanism paradigm.

From concrete goals such as stimulating the local ecology and providing opportunities for the actors

to grow their own food to more abstract goals such as re-connecting urban life with nature and raise

awareness by involvement with nature. New Urbanism on the other hand does not encourage

gardening, except for some small, idealistic roof gardens most green space is provided by public

parks which seldom provide space for gardening.

Gardening has been proven to be a method of stress relief (Van Den Berg & Custers 2011)

and can function well as a social hub (S. Lee, 2001). There are no clear disadvantages of gardening

when it comes to wellbeing of the actor or the environment. Therefore gardening is seen as a no-

regrets, universally good practice.

Social contacts

Landscape urbanism provokes a more self-contained lifestyle with little interactions because

of the big distances between the different the dwellings. New Urbanism aims at a vibrant street life

and needs a high population density to ensure a busy streetscape. Social sustainability is important

because it improves the stability of the neighbourhood, community empowerment and local

governance (Dempsey et al, 2011). New Urbanism has a clear advantage because of the high

amount of people stacked together and the mixed-use spaces do invite for social interaction. In other

words: there is a high exposure and high concentration. However, Landscape urbanists argue that

the rushed city life leads to a shallower social life and that the more peaceful, quiet lifestyle of the

suburbs gives space to deeper friendships. There is unfortunately no empirical data to support this

9

argument. The lack of a community oriented approach and increased distances between inhabitants

makes the Landscape Urbanist paradigm rate poorly while the New Urbanist paradigm has a strong

focus on social sustainability and scores the maximum points.

Table 1. The differences between LU and NU

Landcape Urbanism New Urbanism

Travel Short distances: cycling, walking. Long distances: No alternative offered, habit remains unchallenged.

Provides alternatives such as trains, busses, cycling.

Work Separation of functions: work mostly takes place in a different area.

Mixed use promotes working in same area.

Leisure Large potential for extensive recreation (walking, cycling).

Large potential for intensive recreation (scating, museums/cultural activities).

Shopping Mostly accessible by car, big shopping centres and malls.

Walking distances, small shops and alleys.

Gardening High potential. Spacious gardens. Possibility for food self-sufficiency.

Low potential. Only small roof gardens and little chances for food production.

Social contacts Low daily interaction between inhabitants due to distances. A more rural life.

Vibrant city life. Also: rushed city life can flatten social relations.

Results: The social practices are individually rated on a Likert scale (Likert, 1932). The accuracy of

using five levels, from -- to ++, represents the results of this study well so no false sense of

precision is given. Table 2 shows the rating on a Likert scale. It is important to keep in mind that not

the quality or quantity of the social practice is measured but how much the actor is challenged to

change its behaviour.

The results display each social practice as equally important. The rating of the different

practices however tends more towards a political and ideological preference than a scientific

judgement. E.g. is growing your own food better than only travelling by public transport? The result

of this research contains to overcome this problem a “neutral” outcome (every social practice is

equally important for green living) and an expert judgement (some practices are more important

than others).

10

Clarification of the scale:

-- (1) Unsustainable behaviour is amplified

- (2) The lifestyle of the actor remains unchallenged.

o (3) Nudging in a sustainable direction, but very permissive.

+ (4) The actor is actively pushed towards sustainable behaviour.

++ (5) Sustainable behaviour is the most desirable option, demotivates unsustainable behaviour.

Table 2. Rating of the social practices

Landscape Urbanism: New Urbanism: Expert judgement:

Travel -- + 20%

Food consumption + o 25%

Leisure O + 15%

Work - o 5%

Shopping O + 10%

Gardening ++ -- 15%

Social contacts - ++ 10%

The average, “neutral” score of Landscape Urbanism is a 2,9 and the average score of New

Urbanism is 3,4. This means that the New Urbanism paradigm steers 10% more towards sustainable

behavioural change.

The weighted results show the same trend: Landscape Urbanism scores 4,3 points and New

Urbanism 4,8 points. The full table with the numbers used to calculate the results can be found in

the appendix.

Conclusion: Landscape Urbanism and New Urbanism both have their strong points when it comes to

alter urban lifestyles into sustainable living. The strong points of Landscape Urbanism in this

context are: re-establishing the human-nature relationship and providing space for local initiatives.

New Urbanism has a strong approach in altering the travel behaviour of the actor, increasing the

social connectedness and lowering the impacts of the behaviour.

A selected list of social practices is rated for both paradigms. New Urbanism scores in the

weighted and unweighted results significantly higher which means that the concept of New

Urbanism, when applied, does provide a better framework for change in the behaviour of the actor.

It is important to note that both paradigms have their strong and weak points and that there is

no “ultimate urban form”. It is recommended to investigate whether it is possible to combine the

best parts of Landscape Urbanism with the best parts of New Urbanism for a new urban typology.

11

Discussion: This paper only takes the social side of both development strategies into account. The other

factors that are just as important such as CO2 footprint, ecology, aesthetics, energy production and

consumption, soil conditions, cultural preferences and technical barriers are not included.

Another way of looking at New Urbanism vs. Landscape Urbanism is through the lens of

economics. In the housing market people vote with their wallets and the attractiveness of a certain

lifestyle is reflected in the willingness to pay for a house in a particular neighborhood.

The effort needed to make a Landscape Urbanist or New Urbanist neighborhood function. It

is far easier to built detached houses and sell them with the surrounding land than building a high-

density, mixed use neighborhood which still has to develop its main selling point: the social

cohesion and liveliness. The economic risks are likely to be lower for building “urban sprawl”. In

this report the focus was to see which of the systems of provisioning better suits the demand of the

actor, not to see which system of provisioning is more effective (cost/benefit) in its execution.

The positive steering is more common than the negative steering in both Landscape

Urbanism and New Urbanism. This is can be partly explained by the fact that in a free market

different developments have to compete to attract enough buyers. The more drawbacks are

implemented in the design (roads with dead ends, lack of facilities), the more risk the developer of

the site takes. Therefore both paradigms mostly aim at promoting green behavior, not at forbidding

unsustainable behavior.

The change in the lifestyle component is closely linked to the concept of “habitus” as

developed by Bourdieu (2002). This could be implemented as a time component within the analysis.

It is imaginable that some habits are easier to change than others. Because the different adaptation

rates for these practices are unknown the factor time is excluded in this research. It is assumed that

“sooner or later” actors will choose for the most advantageous option. Further research is needed to

determine whether one scenario outperforms the other within a particular timeframe.

References:

Van Den Berg, A. E., & Custers, M. H. (2011). Gardening promotes neuroendocrine and affective restoration from stress. Journal of health Psychology, 16(1), 3-11.

Bourdieu, P. (2002). Habitus. Habitus: A sense of place, 27-34. Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2008). Green Consumption Life-politics, risk and contradictions.

Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(1), 117-145. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable

development: defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289-300. Dunn, R. G. (2008). Identifying consumption: Subjects and objects in consumer society. Temple

University Press. 130

12

Ewing, R., Schmid, T., Killingsworth, R., Zlot, A., & Raudenbush, S. (2003). Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. American journal of health promotion, 18(1), 47-57.

Goodman, D., & DuPuis, E. M. (2002). Knowing food and growing food: beyond the production–consumption debate in the sociology of agriculture. Sociologia ruralis, 42(1), 5-22.

Hooghe, L., and G. Marks (2003) Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance. The American Political Science Review, 97(2): 233-243.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities (pp. 273-277). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Lee, S. (2001). Community gardening benefits as perceived among American-born and immigrant gardeners in San Jose, California. Unpublished paper. Environmental Science Department, University of California, Berkeley.

Likert, R. (1932). "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes". Archives of Psychology 140: 1–55.

Maat, K., van Wee, B., & Stead, D. (2005). Land use and travel behaviour: expected effects from the perspective of utility theory and activity-based theories. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(1), 33-46.

Neyfakh, L. (2011) Are cities the best place to live? Are suburbs OK? A fight grows in urban planning, with Harvard at the center. Retrieved 18.04, 2013, from http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/30/green_building/

Pérez, M. (2011) Urban Design Divide: New Urbanism vs. Landscape Urbanism, Retrieved 10.04, 2013, from http://intermediatelandscapes.com/2011/07/14/urban-design-divide-new-urbanism-vs-landscape-urbanism/

Robinson, J. P. (1969). Television and leisure time: yesterday, today, and (maybe) tomorrow. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(2), 210-222.

SCP (2011) Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau: Tijdsbesteding in Nederland. Retrieved 20.04, 2013 from http://www.scp.nl/Onderzoek/Tijdsbesteding

Sherman, G. (2010) GSD Throwdown: Battle for the Intellectual Territory of a Sustainable Urban-ism (2010) Retrieved 18.04, 2013, from http://urbanomnibus.net/2010/11/gsd-throwdown-battle-for-the-intellectual-territory-of-a-sustainable-urbanism/

Shoup, D. C. (2005). The high cost of free parking (Vol. 7). Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association.

Shriver, K. (1997). Influence of environmental design on pedestrian travel behavior in four Austin neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1578(1), 64-75.

Spaargaren, G. (2003): Sustainable Consumption: A Theoretical and Environmental Policy Perspective, Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 16:8, 687-701

Spaargaren, G., & Van Vliet, B. (2000). Lifestyles, consumption and the environment: The ecological modernization of domestic consumption. Environmental Politics, 9(1), 50-76.

Spaargaren, G. & Van Koppen, C. S. A. (2013) Environment and society. An introduction to the social dimensions of environmental change. Wageningen: Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University.

Waldheim, C. (2006). The landscape urbanism reader. Princeton Architectural Press. Wansink, B., J. E. Painter and Y. K. Lee (2006) The office candy dish: proximity's influence on

estimated and actual consumption. International Journal of Obesity 30, 871–875 Wright, F. L. (1935). Broadacre City: A new community plan. Architectural Record, 77(4), 243-54.