Abstract
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a relatively recent neighbourhood development concept associated with the three dimensions of urban sustainability (environmental, economic and social). Traditionally, TOD has been associated with environmental and economic benefits. Recent research has shown evidence of positive social outcomes related to the spatial characteristics of TOD areas. But the social sustainability that can be drawn from TOD interventions may multiply when designed through participatory planning processes. Here, I combine TOD literature with that of collaborative urban planning to highlight the potential of participatory TOD for urban social sustainability.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
TOD and urban sustainability
Sustainable urban development goes hand in hand with the concept of transit-oriented development (TOD) (Newman and Kenworthy 1999; Belzer and Autler 2002; Renne 2008; Curtis et al. 2009; Nahlik and Chester 2014). TOD is a relatively recent neighbourhood development concept associated with the three dimensions of urban sustainability (environmental, economic and social). It aims at decreasing transport distances through diverse land use patterns, moderate to high residential and employment density, frequent and well connected public transport services (PT) and street network design that prioritizes pedestrian and transit users. This results in expanded use of non-motorized transport modes and a shift away from car ridership.
There is strong evidence of global and local benefits on environmental and economic issues arising from TOD projects. Land use diversity and transit ridership shift transport modes from fossil fuelled to low-carbon intensity ones and reduces transport distances. Consequently, emissions from green house gases and local air pollutants decrease together with traffic congestion. Such changes generate economic gains with regards to transport efficiencies and ecosystems quality (Newman and Kenworthy 1999; Belzer and Autler 2002; Vickerman 2008; Rahul and Verma 2013; Nahlik and Chester 2014). Next, households save on transport costs (Dubé et al. 2011; Nahlik and Chester 2014) and see an appreciation in home prices related to the increase in location attractiveness (Rahul and Verma 2013; Hasibuan et al. 2014; Nahlik and Chester 2014).Footnote 1 At the regional level, TOD projects often stimulates private investment, job creation, and overall competitiveness (Knowles 2012), which enhances socio-economic circumstances. Although there is less research evidence, TOD may also contribute to social sustainability (Kamruzzaman et al. 2014). Research to date has only looked at the link between the spatial characteristics of TOD neighbourhoods and social capital. In this article, I focus on the unexplored synergies that could take place when linking TOD projects with participatory planning processes. I first summarize the evidence related to TOD and social capital and identify important knowledge gaps. Next, I summarize the current evidence on the effects of transport and urban planning interventions on social sustainability. I then describe the concepts of participatory planning and the methodologies available that could be applied to TOD. I use these strands to argue that participatory planning would improve the social benefits of TOD.
TOD and social sustainability
Empirical evidence covers the relationship between specific built environment characteristics of TOD areas (i.e. density, planned mixed land uses, walkability and street design) and social capital (one aspect of social sustainability). Social capital comprises all institutions, relationships and customs that shape the quality and quantity of social interactions in a community (The World Bank 2011). Findings suggest that the built environment influences social capital, but the empirical relationship remains unclear. For example, although TOD fosters dense development, denser neighbourhoods do not always provide higher social capital (Glaeser and Gottlieb 2006; Dempsey et al. 2012). Mixed land uses, another intrinsic characteristic of TOD, have also shown divergent outcomes. In line with this argument, (Lund 2003) found a weak relationship between neighbourhood environment features and social interactions in Portland, Oregon (US). Counterarguments also exist: (Leyden 2003) Irish study showed that mixed-use neighbourhoods had higher levels of social capital. Similarly, there is no clear evidence on the link between public transport accessibility levels (PTAL) and social capital, although most scholars agree that it positively affects social inclusion (Stanley and Lucas 2008; Currie and Stanley 2008; Stanley and Vella-Brodrick 2009; Stanley et al. 2010, 2012). What is clear is that walkable neighbourhoods perform better in terms of social sustainability. Pedestrian-oriented neighbourhoods foster a sense of community (Lund 2002; Leyden 2003; Du Toit et al. 2007), trust, political participation, and social engagement (Leyden 2003; Mason 2010; Wood et al. 2012). There is only one study comparing TOD and non-TOD areas for the case of Brisbane (Australia). Results showed that individuals living in TOD areas had a significantly higher level of trust and reciprocity and connexion with neighbourhood compared to non-TOD areas, which indicates that specific built environment characteristics of TOD areas may foster the development of social capital (Kamruzzaman et al. 2014). Interestingly, however, the same study found negative relations between the indicators of social capital they used and the built environment characteristic when such relations were assessed individually. Still, the relationship between different built environments and other aspects of social capital (i.e. participation in networks, civic engagement, the existence of pooled community resources and social norms) remains understudied. Furthermore, a knowledge gap exists on the relationship between TOD intervention designs and social capital.
Altogether, it is reasonable to say that social capital is highly sensitive to changes in the built environment related to TOD. But the impacts of TOD on social sustainability depend to a great extent on the context. TOD projects create new public spaces and transform pre-existing ones, thus having an impact on communities that goes beyond individual transport or land use interventions. These projects thus have the capacity to foster eco-friendly behaviours (i.e. related to urban mobility) and shift social norms and perceptions related to active transport and lifestyles preferences (i.e. car dependency and preference to live in low-density suburban areas). Therefore, the design of appropriate interventions that takes the social context into account may further increase the overall sustainability outcomes of TOD interventions.
However, the ways and extent to which TOD could influence communities’ social sustainability have not been fully realized. First, some TOD projects are merely ‘transit-related’ interventions (Boarnet and Compin 1999). Second, many projects labelled as ‘transit-oriented’ often entail local goals that go beyond those of TOD, such as fostering economic growth, building a location brand or satisfying political interests (Cervero et al. 2002; Baumann and White 2012; Dorsey and Mulder 2013). Hence, the process of planning and implementing TOD is not always aligned with social sustainability. There are competing interests that hamper adequate prioritization of social and cultural preferences (Cervero et al. 2002; Turner 2012; Dorsey and Mulder 2013). The traditionally narrow priorities based on utility-maximizing rational present poor awareness of the nexus between TOD and place making (Ndebele and Ogra 2014) and little integration of environmental and social considerations (Baumann and White 2012). TOD designs often focus predominantly on physical and functional requirements (Belzer and Autler 2002). One example of this is the development of large-scale TOD projects that do not necessarily increase equity nor welfare (Winston and Maheshri 2007; Chiu et al. 2011). Also, unsuccessful TOD projects have been related to lack of information on travel-related attitudes prior to the intervention (Bailey et al. 2007; De Vos et al. 2014), a critical success factor for low-income neighbourhoods (Bailey et al. 2007). Ecosystem services and local values are not always integrated into urban and transport planning, mostly due to inefficient public participation processes and unstructured stakeholder involvement (Soria-Lara et al. 2015). Consequently, social unacceptability and designs at odds with the local needs occur (Kathryn Scott 2000; Assefa and Frostell 2007). The intransigence of the target community on changes in lifestyles may lead to unintended consequences. For example, the introduction of measures to avoid car usage (i.e. inner-city parking fees) may result in new suburban driving patterns, protests, and induced technological innovations that hamper social changes and, ultimately, sustainable development (i.e. the rebound effect) (Clark 2005; Vallance et al. 2011). In sum, TOD faces a wide nature of challenges and uncertainties, which frequently end up in underprioritization of community’s interests (Belzer and Autler 2002; Dorsey and Mulder 2013) and suboptimal designs for social sustainability. The large-scale mass transit investment in Jakarta (Indonesia) is one example where social sustainability outcomes were affected. The differences across gender and other social groups with regards to safety and security were not addressed in the design of the projects resulting in gender gaps and other inequalities (Turner 2012). In Cali (Colombia), accessibility to the newly implemented bus rapid transit (BRT) system varies in relation to neighbourhood socio-economic strata, greatest for middle-income groups and most limited for areas with population from the highest and lowest socio-economic strata (Delmelle and Casas 2012). Workplace relocation towards mixed-use transit-oriented development in a suburban area of Lisbon (Portugal) did not trigger the expected modal shifts, indicating a lack of understanding of citizen’s commuting preferences and inadequate measures to discourage workers from using their cars to commute (Vale 2013). In the wider European context, urban transport vision plans are still based on technological innovation, which devalues the importance of social innovation as a key factor for transformative changes towards sustainable urban transport, and further indicates that citizens’ participation plays a secondary role in the design and decision-making process (Upham et al. 2013). Although notable progress has been made in terms of policy rhetoric in countries such as the UK and Finland, the link between participatory processes and policy outcomes remains unclear, partly because there are no explicit procedures to make it a deliberative process (Elvy 2014).
Participatory planning for TOD
As with urban sustainability, TOD governance offers great opportunities but also challenges, especially with regards to citizens, which can be resolved with stakeholder participation. While a great deal has been written about the role of participation on urban sustainability transitions and on transport planning (Mahdavinejad and Amini 2011; Proli 2011; Collier et al. 2013; Smedby and Neij 2013; Sagaris 2014), so far, there has been no research on the effects of participatory planning processes for TOD on social sustainability. (Innes and Gruber 2005) identified the following planning styles in the transit development of the San Francisco Bay area: (a) the technical/bureaucratic style, based upon neutrality, objectivity and quantitative analysis; (b) the political influence style, which pushes for a particular agenda influenced by politics and popularity; (c) the social movement style, which reflects community activism and involvement in strategic planning decisions; and (d) the collaborative style: the ‘coming together’ of diverse stakeholders to reach a consensus. In their research, collaborative designs showed greater public satisfaction and cost efficiency in the design of the projects compared with other approaches. Two major reasons were identified. First, there was a strong incentive to reach agreements when involving stakeholders. Secondly, building networks created additional social, political and intellectual capital, which together is most likely to produce innovative outcomes that overcome controversies and minimize uncertainties. In relation to this argument, although new technologies (i.e. GPS data) can help obtain information on intra-personal day-to-day variability and flexibility of commuting behaviour (i.e. space, time, travel mode and travel route) (Shen et al. 2013), these patterns vary among communities, neighbourhoods and social and minority groups, and participatory processes capture better the diversity of preferences. More generally, there are new goals emerging in urban transport planning; while physical mobility is still an essential priority, the social and environmental performance of interventions is becoming more and more relevant for communities (Bertolini et al. 2008).
Urban transitions towards sustainability also benefit from stakeholder participation; it enhances deliberation and collaboration between diverse stakeholders and among public agencies, particularly in contexts of social inequalities (Hamann and April 2013). The concept of neighbourhood planning also addresses the importance of community involvement to identify, negotiate and reconcile strategic and community interests (Pinnegar 2012). Furthermore, true dialogue among stakeholders defuses adversarial processes and facilitates better and depoliticised policy choices (Bertolini et al. 2008; Faehnle and Tyrväinen 2013). Such planning approaches enhance the collaboration between governmental authorities, and their awareness and efficiency in addressing environmental and social externalities (Taylor and Schweitzer 2005). In the case of TOD, as they create tangible urban transformations, active inclusion of citizens’ views could further reinforce transformation trends across diverse scales, not just through changes in the built environment. Participatory planning for TOD helps achieve lifestyles, social preferences and behaviours aligned with sustainability principles. In Medellin (Colombia) citizens’ empowerment in the design, implementation, handing over mechanisms and evaluation of TOD plans strengthened democratic processes in the most conflict-prone neighbourhoods of the city (Brand and Dávila 2011; Dávila and Daste 2011; Rodriguez Herrera 2012). The participatory design of TOD in a low-income urban neighbourhood of Louisville, Kentucky (US) helped to integrate local preferences resulting in a positive response from the community which was willing to change its travel behaviour (Bailey et al. 2007). In Santiago (Chile), self-organized citizen participation generated transparent processes favouring sustainability and democratization and fostered innovation in urban and transport planning (Sagaris 2014).
The institutional feasibility of participatory planning through political and social frameworks and methodological practices has now reached maturity (Innes 1995, 1996) and could easily be applied to the TOD case. Multiple-criteria decision analysis through analytical hierarchy process approaches serve, especially at the initial stage, to understand the biases between preferences, desires and expectations among groups (de Luca 2014). The development of local knowledge in practice-based training programmes can help construct local capacity for collaboration (Ataöv and Ezgi Haliloğlu Kahraman 2009). Visual and participatory workshops embedded into a structured public involvement (SPI) process help identify preferred planning combinations for citizens (Bailey et al. 2007). Computer support for collaborative planning also facilitates group interactions and decision-making processes. Visualization tools, from 2D geographic information systems (GIS) (Coors et al. 1999) to recently developed 3D visualization and modelling programmes, help in managing complexity in communication (Bailey et al. 2007; Neuenschwander et al. 2014). The design of participatory TOD planning processes can thus be achieved with relatively little effort.
Conclusion
Public interventions that change urban spaces like TOD also alter social sustainability. TOD improves the quality of public spaces and urban connectivity and accessibility, which enhances urban mobility and fosters social networks. Appropriate transit, land use mix, and public space design is fundamental to the social outcomes of TOD interventions. It would therefore be useful to use participatory planning processes to maximize the social outcomes of the interventions. But the potential of making citizens feel part of the projects that shape communities remain underdeveloped, even though the community’s perception is a key in optimizing public interventions. Participatory planning processes could multiply the social benefits related to TOD, such as increased transparency, trust, social inclusion, collective action and social networks, and further act as a catalyser of urban sustainability.
Notes
Increase in location values may, however, decrease housing affordability if no parallel land policies occur.
References
Assefa G, Frostell B (2007) Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: a case study of energy technologies. Technol Soc 29:63–78. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2006.10.007
Ataöv A, Ezgi Haliloğlu Kahraman Z (2009) Constructing collaborative processes through experiential learning: participatory planning in Kaymaklı, Turkey. Habitat Int 33:378–386. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.11.001
Bailey K, Grossardt T, Pride-Wells M (2007) Community design of a light rail transit-oriented development using casewise visual evaluation (CAVE). Socioecon Plan Sci 41:235–254. doi:10.1016/j.seps.2006.04.002
Baumann C, White S (2012) Making better choices: a systematic comparison of adversarial and collaborative approaches to the transport policy process. Transp Policy 24:83–90. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.06.012
Belzer D, Autler G (2002) Transit-Oriented Development: Moving From Rhetoric To Reality. In: Brook. Inst. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2002/06/cities-dena-belzer-and-gerald-autler. Accessed 4 Nov 2014
Bertolini L, le Clercq F, Straatemeier T (2008) Urban transportation planning in transition. Transp Policy 15:69–72. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.11.002
Boarnet MG, Compin NS (1999) Transit-oriented development in San Diego County. J Am Plan Assoc 65:80–95. doi:10.1080/01944369908976035
Brand P, Dávila JD (2011) Mobility innovation at the urban margins. City 15:647–661. doi:10.1080/13604813.2011.609007
Cervero R, Ferell C, Murphy C (2002) Research results digest 52: transit-oriented development and joint development in the United States: a literature review. National Research Council and Transport Research Board, Washington, DC
Chiu Y, Huang C, Ma C-M (2011) Assessment of China transit and economic efficiencies in a modified value-chains DEA model. Eur J Oper Res 209:95–103. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2010.05.010
Clark M (2005) The Compact City: European Ideal, Global Fix or Myth? Glob Built Environ Rev 4
Collier MJ, Nedović-Budić Z, Aerts J et al (2013) Transitioning to resilience and sustainability in urban communities. Cities 32. Supplement 1:S21–S28. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.010
Coors V, Jasnoch U, Jung V (1999) Using the Virtual Table as an interaction platform for collaborative urban planning. Comput Graph 23:487–496. doi:10.1016/S0097-8493(99)00068-0
Currie G, Stanley J (2008) Investigating links between social capital and public transport. Transp Rev 28:529–547. doi:10.1080/01441640701817197
Curtis C, Renne JL, Bertolini L (2009) Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Dávila JD, Daste D (2011) Pobreza, participación y Metrocable. Estudio del caso de Medellín. Bol CFS 121–131
De Luca S (2014) Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: an analytic hierarchy process based approach. Transp Policy 33:110–124. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.03.002
De Vos J, Van Acker V, Witlox F (2014) The influence of attitudes on transit-oriented development: an explorative analysis. Transp Policy 35:326–329. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.04.004
Delmelle EC, Casas I (2012) Evaluating the spatial equity of bus rapid transit-based accessibility patterns in a developing country: the case of Cali, Colombia. Transp Policy 20:36–46. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.12.001
Dempsey N, Brown C, Bramley G (2012) The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social sustainability. Prog Plan 77:89–141. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2012.01.001
Dorsey B, Mulder A (2013) Planning, place-making and building consensus for transit-oriented development: Ogden, Utah case study. J Transp Geogr 32:65–76. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.08.010
Du Toit L, Cerin E, Leslie E, Owen N (2007) Does walking in the neighbourhood enhance local sociability? Urban Stud 44:1677–1695. doi:10.1080/00420980701426665
Dubé J, Rosiers FD, Thériault M, Dib P (2011) Economic impact of a supply change in mass transit in urban areas: a Canadian example. Transp Res Part Policy Pract 45:46–62. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.09.002
Elvy J (2014) Public participation in transport planning amongst the socially excluded: an analysis of 3rd generation local transport plans. Case Stud Transp Policy 2:41–49. doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2014.06.004
Faehnle M, Tyrväinen L (2013) A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy 34:332–341. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.006
Glaeser EL, Gottlieb JD (2006) Urban resurgence and the consumer city. Social Science Research Network, Rochester
Hamann R, April K (2013) On the role and capabilities of collaborative intermediary organisations in urban sustainability transitions. J Clean Prod 50:12–21. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.017
Hasibuan HS, Soemardi TP, Koestoer R, Moersidik S (2014) The role of transit oriented development in constructing urban environment sustainability, the case of Jabodetabek, Indonesia. Procedia Environ Sci 20:622–631. doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2014.03.075
Innes JE (1995) Coordinating Growth and Environmental Management Through Consensus Building, Vol. 1. Calif Policy Res Cent
Innes JE (1996) Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. J Am Plan Assoc 62:460–472. doi:10.1080/01944369608975712
Innes JE, Gruber J (2005) Planning styles in conflict: the metropolitan transportation commission. J Am Plan Assoc 71:177–188. doi:10.1080/01944360508976691
Kamruzzaman M, Wood L, Hine J et al (2014) Patterns of social capital associated with transit oriented development. J Transp Geogr 35:144–155. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.02.003
Kathryn Scott JP (2000) From ‘sustainable rural communities’ to ‘social sustainability’: giving voice to diversity in Mangakahia Valley, New Zealand. J Rural Stud 433–446. 10.1016/S0743-0167(00)00018-8
Knowles RD (2012) Transit oriented development in Copenhagen, Denmark: from the finger plan to Ørestad. J Transp Geogr 22:251–261. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.009
Leyden KM (2003) Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhoods. Am J Public Health 93:1546–1551
Lund H (2002) Pedestrian environments and sense of community. J Plan Educ Res 21:301–312. doi:10.1177/0739456X0202100307
Lund H (2003) Testing the claims of new urbanism: local access, pedestrian travel, and neighboring behaviors. J Am Plan Assoc 69:414–429. doi:10.1080/01944360308976328
Mahdavinejad M, Amini M (2011) Public participation for sustainable urban planning in case of Iran. Procedia Eng 21:405–413. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2032
Mason SG (2010) Can community design build trust? A comparative study of design factors in Boise, Idaho neighborhoods. Cities 27:456–465. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2010.07.003
Nahlik MJ, Chester MV (2014) Transit-oriented smart growth can reduce life-cycle environmental impacts and household costs in Los Angeles. Transp Policy 35:21–30. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.004
Ndebele R, Ogra A (2014) A place-based approach to spatial transformation: a case study of transit oriented development (TOD), Johannesburg
Neuenschwander N, Wissen Hayek U, Grêt-Regamey A (2014) Integrating an urban green space typology into procedural 3D visualization for collaborative planning. Comput Environ Urban Syst 48:99–110. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.07.010
Newman P, Kenworthy J (1999) Sustainability and cities: overcoming automobile dependence. Auflage: Teacher and Rev. Island Pr, Washington, D.C
Pinnegar S (2012) Neighbourhood Planning. In: Smith SJ (ed) Int. Encycl. Hous. Home. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 78–84
Proli S (2011) Improving an urban sustainability environment through community participation: the case of Emilia-Romagna region. Procedia Eng 21:1118–1123. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2119
Rahul TM, Verma A (2013) Economic impact of non-motorized transportation in Indian cities. Res Transp Econ 38:22–34. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2012.05.005
Renne JL (2008) From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented development. Local Environ 14:1–15. doi:10.1080/13549830802522376
Rodriguez Herrera C (2012) Análisis de los Procesos de Inclusión Social a Partir de los Programas de Mejoramiento Urbanístico. Estudio de Caso Línea J Metrocable. Universidad Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario
Sagaris L (2014) Citizen participation for sustainable transport: the case of “Living City” in Santiago, Chile (1997–2012). J Transp Geogr 41:74–83. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.011
Shen Y, Kwan M-P, Chai Y (2013) Investigating commuting flexibility with GPS data and 3D geovisualization: a case study of Beijing, China. J Transp Geogr 32:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.07.007
Smedby N, Neij L (2013) Experiences in urban governance for sustainability: the constructive dialogue in Swedish municipalities. J Clean Prod 50:148–158. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.044
Soria-Lara JA, Bertolini L, te Brömmelstroet M (2015) Environmental impact assessment in urban transport planning: exploring process-related barriers in Spanish practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev 50:95–104. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.001
Stanley J, Lucas K (2008) Social exclusion: what can public transport offer? Res Transp Econ 22:36–40. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2008.05.009
Stanley J, Vella-Brodrick D (2009) The usefulness of social exclusion to inform social policy in transport. Transp Policy 16:90–96. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.02.003
Stanley J, Stanley J, Vella-Brodrick D, Currie G (2010) The place of transport in facilitating social inclusion via the mediating influence of social capital. Res Transp Econ 29:280–286. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.035
Stanley J, Stanley J, Hensher D (2012) Mobility, Social Capital and Sense of Community: What Value? Urban Stud 0042098012447002. 10.1177/0042098012447002
Taylor BD, Schweitzer L (2005) Assessing the experience of mandated collaborative inter-jurisdictional transport planning in the United States. Transp Policy 12:500–511. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.04.004
The World Bank (2011) Social Capital Initiative Working Paper Series. Social Development Department, Washington, DC
Turner J (2012) Urban mass transit, gender planning protocols and social sustainability—the case of Jakarta. Res Transp Econ 34:48–53. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2011.12.003
Upham P, Kivimaa P, Virkamäki V (2013) Path dependence and technological expectations in transport policy: the case of Finland and the UK. J Transp Geogr 32:12–22. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.08.004
Vale DS (2013) Does commuting time tolerance impede sustainable urban mobility? Analysing the impacts on commuting behaviour as a result of workplace relocation to a mixed-use centre in Lisbon. J Transp Geogr 32:38–48. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.08.003
Vallance S, Perkins HC, Dixon JE (2011) What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum 42:342–348. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.002
Vickerman R (2008) Transit investment and economic development. Res Transp Econ 23:107–115. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2008.10.007
Winston C, Maheshri V (2007) On the social desirability of urban rail transit systems. J Urban Econ 62:362–382. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2006.07.002
Wood L, Giles-Corti B, Bulsara M (2012) Streets apart: does social capital vary with neighbourhood design? Urban Stud Res 2012:e507503. doi:10.1155/2012/507503
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fernandez Milan, B. How participatory planning processes for transit-oriented development contribute to social sustainability. J Environ Stud Sci 6, 520–524 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0217-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0217-5