Is compact city livable? The impact of compact versus sprawled neighbourhoods on neighbourhood satisfaction

Abstract

Low-density urban forms are often considered more livable than compact ones. Yet, studies investigating the relationship between compact cities and livability do not take into consideration the importance of public transport, accessibility and mix of land uses along with high densities. Moreover, direct comparisons of livability between the compact city and its alternative, urban sprawl, are scarce, and even more so in a European context. Investigating the metropolitan area of Oslo, which encompasses both compact and sprawled areas, this study examines the impact of the compact city on livability by employing neighbourhood satisfaction as a livability measure. Three different methods are used: cross-sectional regression analysis, longitudinal comparisons and qualitative analysis. Cross-sectional results indicate that compact-city residents are significantly more satisfied with their neighbourhood than those who live in sprawled neighbourhoods, even after controlling for sociodemographic and other variables. Longitudinal analysis based on residents who have lived in both neighbourhood types confirms this finding. This study also examines the impact of compactness within a wider range of urban form typologies and finds that the higher the density, the higher the neighbourhood satisfaction. Important components of the compact city – public transport, accessibility to city centre and land use mix – demonstrate a positive association with neighbourhood satisfaction. Findings from this study suggest that, when common urban problems are addressed, and when planned to integrate all its essential characteristics, the compact city has a positive influence on livability.

What Does It Take to Make the Compact City Liveable for Wider Groups? Identifying Key Neighbourhood and Dwelling Features

“…On the other hand, more recent studies have found that compact-city residents are equally or even more satisfied with their neighbourhood than those who live in sprawled areas, suggesting that other elements of urban form may be more important for residential liveability than density per se. In a study of the Oslo region in Norway, Mouratidis (2018) found greater neighbourhood satisfaction for inner-city residents living in apartment blocks in compact neighbourhoods compared to those residing in detached houses in sprawled neighbourhoods in the outskirts of the city [8]. The density effect was present even after controlling for sociodemographic and neighbourhood characteristics, such as aesthetic qualities and attachment.…”

“…However, density alone is not necessarily a principal determinant for liveability. Rather, more detailed elements of the urban form can be of greater importance, such as the built characteristics of the neighbourhood, public transportation services, various elements of the mixed land use, and the design of the dwelling unit (e.g., [8,9]).…”

The Contribution of Transportation and Land Use to Citizen Perceptions of Livability in Oregon MPOs

“…The primary factors that have been found to positively influence neighborhood satisfaction are safety, quietness, neighborhood ties and attractiveness (Mouratidis, 2017;Lovejoy et al, 2010).…”

“…Some studies of neighborhood satisfaction have sought to understand how perceptions vary across different metropolitan areas (Yang, 2008) or types of neighborhoods (Mouratidis, 2017;Lovejoy et al, 2010;McCrea, Shyy and Stimson, 2013). Lovejoy et al finds that respondents from traditional neighborhoods are more satisfied with location and house characteristics than respondents from suburban neighborhoods.…”

“…While the literature more frequently considers neighborhood satisfaction, a few scholars make reference to livability. In some instances, neighborhood satisfaction is used as a proxy for livability (Mouratidis, 2017). In others, different metrics are used to examine livability (Chen et al, 2013).…”