Katherine Irvine
Swapping the house in suburbia for an apartment in the city could be they key to cutting emissions by 11% according to a study by the National Research Council.
Special Report 298: Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions brings attention to suburbia’s dependent relationship with the automobile and how this may be contributing to the United States’ position as the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions.
Suburbanization, fuelled by the promise of detached family homes, backyards and white picket fences, has been a growing trend in America since the 1960s. But the suburban American dream would not have been made possible without the automobile and the development of extensive highway systems.
Now with 50% of the U.S population living in suburbia, America’s dependence on petroleum has continued to grow and the development of new highways continue to consume vast quantities of undeveloped land. The report suggests that suburbia’s dependency on the automobile is the cause of 20% of national annual carbon dioxide.
The answer, according to the NRC report, is doubling residential density in metropolitan areas. However, increasing residential density in cities would not be feasible unless accompanied by improved public transport and amenities that are a walk rather than a drive away.
Improved neighbourhood design could reduce vehicle miles travelled and make the more eco and wallet friendly options of walking and cycling more attractive. The report cites Europe as an exemplar of successfully implemented high density housing. 76% of Europeans live in dense urban areas that are accessible and accompanied by mass transit systems.
The report suggests that government supported infrastructure investments and development incentive policies, especially in areas where high density housing already exists, would make high density housing projects more attractive for property developers.
Currently, however, many cities are trying to halt development at the urban fringe and current housing trends tend toward gated suburban communities rather than high rise apartments.
Local zoning regulations represent the most significant barrier to more compact development. High density housing are not always welcomed by communities as they have a reputation of being large, poorly built constructions that are aesthetically displeasing and unsuited to the environment.
Perceived problems, such as increased congestion and effect on local taxes or home values are also cause for concern.
This resistance is likely to stop any changes to land use policy in favour of increased housing developments and shows the public are more concerned with local effects rather than potential national advantages.
The NRC are aware of the bad name housing developments have received and point out that building up an urban core would require “such a significant departure from current housing trends, land use policies or jurisdictions on the urban fringe and public preferences that those measures are unrealistic absent a strong state or regional role in growth management”.
In a moderate scenario, the report suggests that if 25% of new and replacement housing was to be built at twice the density of current development levels there would be a 12% drop in vehicle driving and an emissions reduction of 1% by 2030.
Emissions would continue to reduce if the infrastructure was in place to make urban areas walking and cycling friendly and vehicle transport less convenient. However, like with all policies to help stop the effects of climate change, time is of the essence so it is vital that high density housing be considered seriously and acted on as soon as possible by government to ensure energy efficient living of the future.
More great stories on Celsias:
