Desirable Dense Neighbourhoods: An Environmental Psychological Approach for Understanding Community Resistance to Densification

Abstract

This article examines an environmental psychological approach to exploring the attitudes of urban residents towards what they consider to be a ‘desirable dense’ neighbourhood. Socio-cultural expectations of high-density developments are explored through an analysis of residents’ perceptions of what constitutes a desirable high-density environment. The article presents specific findings identifying influences on residents’ attitudes to urban densification derived from three case studies of designated transit-oriented development (TOD) areas located in the Perth Metropolitan Region. It was found that community resistance towards future higher-density developments is rooted in the current socio-cultural context of the area. Community resistance may be driven by the physical quality of developments (such as building heights, overshadowing), however, deeper concerns are allied to the uncertain social outcomes that are the product of new development. A dominant cultural characteristic such as a disinclination to socialise with diverse people is found to be a negative response to dense neighbourhoods in all the case studies. This characteristic is more evident in populations of high socio-economic status. These areas are usually close to the central business district (CBD) where many infill high-density developments have been proposed.

本文用环境心理方法，考察城市居民对小区“最佳人口密度”的看法。 通过分析居民对构成最佳高密度环境因素的 认识，考察对高密度小区开发的社会-文化预期。研究通过对帕斯大区三个公共交通导向开发项目（TOD）的个案 研究，确定影响居民对城市人口密度态度的因素。研究结果表明，社区对未来提高人口密度的开发项目的抵制，来 源于该地区目前的社会文化环境。开发项目的物理特点（如建筑高度、建筑遮光）的确是社区抵制新项目的原因， 但更深层的担忧还是在于新项目无法确定的社会影响。重要的文化特征，如不喜热闹，在所有个案中都成为反对高人口密度的因素。在社会经济地位较高的人群中尤为明显。这些地区通常离中心商业区（CBD）较近，是填空式高密度开发项目瞄准的地区。

Key words:

• Urban consolidations
• perceived density
• desirable density
• community perceptions
• culture
• transit-oriented development

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. For example, where dwelling types or features are compared, the alternative hypothesis is one-sided (examining the confidence in one dwelling type or feature, being more selective than the other). The reported p-values are the probability of null hypothesis (complement of alternative hypothesis) (Dalgaard, 2008). For example, if it was intended to measure the probability of medium density being more preferred than low density and the p-value is 0.007, this means that 99.3 per cent of any other studies of the population will show that medium density is more desirable than low density.

2. Variables selected from the Grattan Institute report “The Housing We’d Choose” of June 2011 (Kelly et. al, 2012).

3. The statistical confidence that having a ‘diverse mix of people’ is among the four least preferred features is 95 per cent in Canning Bridge, 70 per cent in Cannington and 95 per cent in Wellard.

4. In order to avoid any bias in selecting the preferred dwelling/housing type, black and white images were used. Images are from Residential Density & Housing Examples Perth, WA (2004).

5. The statistical confidence that medium density is more preferred than low density in a dense neighbourhood is about 100 per cent for all three case studies.

6. Dwelling features are selected from the Grattan Institute report “The Housing We’d Choose” of June 2011 (Kelly et. al, 2011).

7. Home features scored on a scale from 0 = not important to 10 = extremely important. Sum of the number of respondents times their score divided by the total number of respondents.

8. A dwelling for which there are no common areas shared with other households.

9. The p-value (confidence) for preference of medium density over low density is ~0.003 (99.7 per cent) in Canning Bridge, 0.007 (99.3 per cent) in Cannington and 0.218 (78.2 per cent) in Wellard.

10. ‘Empty nesters’ are inclined to downsize from big family homes, and they are happy to leave some responsibilities behind such as maintaining a big garden and a swimming pool (Hamilton & Hamilton, 2006; Sweenery Research, 2006, as cited in Holling & Haslam Mckenzie, 2010, p. 280).

11. The p-value = 0.049 (confidence of 95.1 per cent) for preferring medium density over low density for the young age group in Canning Bridge.

12. See Dalgaard (2008).

13. The confidence that more people are living in detached houses than those who prefer to is ~100 per cent (p-value ~ 0).

14. The p-value (confidence) for preference of medium density over low-density housing among couples without children is ~0 (100 per cent) in Canning Bridge, 0.5 (50 per cent) in Cannington and 0.375 (62.5 per cent) in Wellard.

15. The p-value (confidence) for preference of medium density over low-density housing for the group earning less than 40k is ~0 (100 per cent) in Canning Bridge, 0.03 (96 per cent) in Cannington and 0.05 (95 per cent) in Wellard.

16. The p-value (confidence) for preference of medium density over low-density housing for the group earning 40k–120k is ~0 (100 per cent) in Canning Bridge, 0.075 (92.5 per cent) in Cannington and 0.619 (38.1 per cent) in Wellard.

17. From an economic point of view, medium-rise density is a more cost-effective option for developers too (Rowley & Phibbs, 2012).