Sustainable community planning and design : a demostration project as pathway, the case of Egebjerggard, Ballerup, Denmark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the sustainable community planning and design discourse has been about prescribing and defining ends. A large gap exists between goals for sustainability and the ways and means to achieve them. Multiple barriers are encountered when implementation attempts are made. The research addresses the question: In what ways can demonstration projects increase social learning of effective planning, design and policy alternatives that assist in developing sustainable urban communities? Demonstration here is an area based, site specific planning and design process and built project showing potential adopters the benefits of employing various innovations. Five fields of scholarship and research (land-use and sustainable development; planning and design participation; urban experimentation and demonstration; innovation, diffusion and social learning; action for innovation and implementation) are drawn upon to inform the objectives. An analytical-evaluative framework for sustainable planning and design is developed, then applied in a detailed case study. The case study of Egebjerggard, a 928 dwelling, mixed use neighbourhood in Ballerup, Denmark provides an analysis of how leading practice can contribute to a better understanding of the potentials and challenges for advancing community policy, design and implementation at the neighbourhood and city-wide level. The analysis enables the interpretation of the Ballerup experience and the transfer of principles to the Canadian context. Two initiatives in sustainable community development in Calgary and Vancouver indicate the issues, opportunities and the state of practice. A proposed demonstration strategy outlines possible new institutional and organizational capacities and relationships in the Canadian residential planning and delivery system. The main contributions include: i) an empirical and descriptive-analytical case study providing a detailed account of integrated planning implementation and policy development in Denmark, ii) a strategy, its structure, organization and functions to carry out demonstration / exhibition in Canadian municipalities, iii) a normative proposition for and the evidence to support an expanded notion of demonstration directing attention to their value and potential. The benefits and returns outlined serve as a general argument for proceeding with a neighbourhood scale fully featured demonstration in any city in Canada.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".