Effect of Physical Urban Environment on Sustainable Urban Development

  • Kadriye Burcu Yavuz Kumlu
  • Şule Tüdeş
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 6)


Certain features, having significant effect on the shape of the urban areas, could be divided to two, as: tangible and intangible. Tangible features are consisted of the physical elements, which forms the urban environment, as land use mix, density (might be based on population, residential, commercial etc.), urban design characteristics etc. On the other hand, intangible features are comprised of the socio-economic measures of the societies, as demographic, cultural, sociological, economical and historical structure of the related societies. Both tangible and intangible features have a significant role in shaping the physical urban environment and since the inner characteristics of these features cause different kinds of physical urban environment, the inner characteristics of the both tangible and intangible features might have substantial impact on the sustainable urban development. Accordingly, in this study, tangible features related with the urban form, as land use mix, density and urban design characteristics and the effect of these characteristics on the configuration of the physical urban environment in the context of sustainable urban development will be clarified. Pros and cons of the different aspects of land use mix, density and urban design characteristics and their effect on the urban form and the sustainable urban development will be discussed by considering the different variations. Therefore, it could be possible to compose a guide, which leads a way to sustainable urban communities.


Land use mix Density Urban design Urban form Sustainability 


  1. 1.
    Basiago AD (1999) Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist 19:145–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), “Our Common Future”, Stockholm, Sweden, pp 1–300 (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Costanza R, Patten BC (1995) Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecol Econ 15:193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maclaren VW (1996) Urban sustainability reporting. J Am Plann Assoc 62(2):184–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu F (2010) Gated and packaged suburbia: Packaging and branding Chinese suburban residential development. Cities 27:385–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marcotullio PJ (2001) Asian urban sustainability in the era of globalization. Habitat Int 25:577–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fedeski M, Gwilliam J (2007) Urban sustainability in the presence of flood and geological hazards: the development of a GIS-based vulnerability and risk assessment methodology. Landscape and Urban Plann 83:50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fainstein SS (2005) Cities and diversity: Should we want it? Can we plan for it?. Urban Aff Rev 41(3):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Commission of the European Communities, “Green paper on the urban environment”, Brussels, Belgium, pp 1–62 (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rowley A (1996) Mixed-use development: ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking?. Plann Pract Res 11(1):85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smart Communities Network. (2015)
  12. 12.
    Jacobs J (2015) Büyük Amerikan Şehirlerinin Ölümü ve Yaşamı, Metis Yayıncılık. ISBN-13: 978-975-342-784-5Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grant J (2002) Mixed use in theory and practice. J Am Plann Assoc 68(1):71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neuman M (2005) The compact city fallacy. J Plan Educ Res 25:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hui SCM (2001) Low energy building design in high density urban cities. Renew Energy 24:627–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jabareen YR (2006) Sustainable urban forms: their typologies, models and concepts. J Plann Educ Res 26:38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Næss P (2009) Urban planning and sustainable development. Eur Plann Stud 9:503–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Newman P (2006) The environmental impact of cities. Environ Urbanization 18:275–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Newman PW, Kenworthy JR (1989) Gasoline consumption and cities. J Am Plann Assoc 55:24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silver C (1985) Neighborhood planning in historical perspective. J Am Plann Assoc 51:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perry C (1929) The neighborhood unit, a scheme of arrangement for the family life community. Reg Surv N Y Environ 7:2–140Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations