A systematic review of motives for densification in Swedish planning practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the current dominant strategies proposed for sustainable urban development is densification. While some advocate the very reasonable benefits of density, others emphasize the potential drawbacks. The main goal of this paper is to provide a systematic overview of the claimed benefits of densification in Swedish practice and relate this to the scientific evidence. For the systematic overview, comprehensive plans from 59 Swedish municipalities, covering plans from both highly urbanized areas as well as more rural regions, are included. The results show that in three out of four cases where density or densification is mentioned, no motive is given. For the other quarter, the most often used motivation is related to transport (19%), services (17%) and urban environmental qualities (14%). The least frequent motives used are related to health (8%) and ecology (2%). The motives in comprehensive plans are for the most part pointing to a positive impact of density on sustainable urban development (77%), which is not always supported by the empirical evidence that more often describe a negative correlation. Furthermore, many of the most frequently used motives in comprehensive plans have little scientific support, which puts new questions on the research agenda.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".