Local Environmental Impacts of Alternative Forms of Residential Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Urbanism is often presented as an improvement over conventional suburban development along economic, social, and environmental lines. While the economic and social claims of New Urbanism have been investigated, relatively little work has examined the potential environmental impacts of New Urbanism as compared with conventional forms of suburban development. One of the challenges of studying the environmental impacts of New Urbanism is that it is still too early to evaluate adequately many sites, since most New Urban development is less than a decade old but it often takes several decades for vegetation and related ecological processes to establish. This paper attempts to address the gap in our understanding of New Urban environmental conditions by examining the relationship between residential-parcel vegetation abundance and specific components of residential form across the Greater Toronto Area (Ontario, Canada). While not explicitly comparing New Urban sites with other locations, this analysis illuminates how many New Urban design principles are related to vegetation conditions by focusing on those aspects of residential form that are addressed by New Urbanism—road pattern, neighborhood land use, and site-level characteristics—across a region with heterogeneous form. The results indicate that locations aligned with New Urbanism design principles do not necessarily support more vegetation than those areas based on more conventional suburban patterns, with many design principles having no relationship to vegetation abundance. The paper concludes by examining the planning implications of the results, and outlines future research needed to understand more fully the long-term impact of New Urbanism on local environmental conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".