• Human Impact Partners
  • Human Impact Partners
  • Human Impact Partners
  • Human Impact Partners
  • Human Impact Partners

Human Impact Partners Evidence Base

Evidence Base Home » Housing » Development projects that promote density or compact development have positive health impacts

Articles in Development projects that promote density, or compact development, have positive health impacts.

  • A San Francisco Bay Area study looking at non-work related trips (in four neighborhoods, controlled for socioeconomic status) found that the proximity and mix of retail and having many, quality destinations and modes of transport choices are the most influential factors in people's decisions to walk.

    Handy S. Understanding the link between urban form and non-work traveling behavior. J Plan Educ Res. 1996;15:183-198.

  • In a study in Atlanta, each quartile increase in mixed-use was associated with a 12.2% reduction in the likelihood of obesity.

    Frank L, Pivo G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transp Res Rec. 1995;1466-1452.

  • At densities above 13 people per acre, shopping trips by public transit and walking increase and automobile use for shopping falls.

    Frank L, Pivo G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Trans Res Rec. 1995;1466-1452.

  • In a study in Atlanta, people who live in neighborhoods with low walkability drive an average of 39 miles per person each weekday, 30% more than those who live in areas with high walkability.

    Goldberg D, Frank L, McCann B, Chapman J, Kavage S. New data for a new era: a summary of the SMARTRAQ findings. Linking land use, transportation, air quality, and health in the Atlanta region. 2007. Available at: http://www.act-trans.ubc.ca/smartraq/files/smartraq_summary.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2009.

  • One study found that in the lowest density blocks (defined as 0-99 housing units per square mile) rates of walking or biking for transport were 3.3% compared to the highest density blocks (defined as >3,000 units per square mile) where rates were 14.5%.

    Ross CL, Dunning AE. Land use transportation: an examination of the 1995 NPTS data. Washington, DC:US Department of Transportation; 1997. Available at: nhts.ornl.gov/1995/Doc/landuse3.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2009.

  • Mixed use lowers vehicle use, which means more physical activity either via walking or taking public transit. In six large suburban area centers, having a retail component within an office building cut vehicle trip rates 8% per employee. Buildings with mixed uses also averaged 3% more commutes by transit.

    Cervero R. Congestion relief: the land use alternative. J Plan Educ and Res. 1991;10:119-128.

  • Auto trips for all purposes were 32% higher in suburban areas than in traditional areas (defined as higher density neighborhood design). However, bike trips were 2% higher and pedestrian travel was 4% higher in traditional neighborhoods compared to suburban areas.

    Friedman B, Gordon SP, Peers JB. Effect of neotraditional neighborhood design on travel characteristics. Trans Res Rec. 1994;1466:63-70.

  • In San Francisco, transit neighborhoods had 120% more trips by walking or biking to work than did auto orientated neighborhoods. Mode share for work trips by pedestrians was between 1.2 and 10.6% higher for the transit neighborhoods. In Los Angeles mode share for walking to work was 1.7 to 24.6% higher in the transit neighborhoods.

    Cervero R, Gorham R. Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods. J Am Plan Assoc. 1995;61:210-225.

  • Including full service grocery stores in a mixed use neighborhood has significant health impacts. Research has found that the presence of a supermarket in a neighborhood predicts higher fruit and vegetable consumption and a reduced prevalence of overweight and obesity.

    Morland K, Diez Roux AV, Wing S. Supermarkets, other food stores, and obesity: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(4):333-339.
    Inagami S, Cohen DA, Finch BK, Asch SM. You are where you shop: grocery store locations, weight, and neighborhoods. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(1):10-17.

  • Living in a pedestrian-centered neighborhood is expected to increase social capital because it increases spontaneous and/or intentional interaction. Spontaneous interactions include, for example, accidentally bumping into neighbors, brief conversations, and waving hello, and can increase trust and a sense of connection. It has been predicted that when summed over time these interactions increase respect and trust.

    Leyden KM. Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhoods. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(9):1546-1551.
    Jacobs J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House; 1961.

  • A stronger presence of pedestrians and cyclists (brought about by above changes in population density) indicates a strong sense of community, increases feelings of safety, increases social interactions, and provides access to children and the elderly. Fear of crime is strongly related to one's sense of community.

    Schweitzer JH, Kim JW, Mackin JR. The impact of the built environment on crime and fear of crime in urban neighborhoods. J Urban Technol. 1999;6(3):59-73.

  • Retail development in the context of mixed-use design generates natural public surveillance. Natural public surveillance is one of the four guiding principles of crime prevention through environmental design. Reduced crime, in turn, improves levels of perceived safety.

    Singapore National Crime Prevention Council. Crime prevention through environmental design: guidebook. 2003. Available at: http://www.ncpc.gov.sg/pdf/CPTED Guidebook.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2009.

  • Dense, multifamily housing typically is more affordable than housing associated with sprawling development.

    Haughey, RM. The Case for Multifamily Housing. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ULI–the Urban Land Institute; 2003.

  • Research has found that people living in counties with sprawling development compared to those living in less sprawling counties are less likely to walk, more likely to weigh more, and more likely to suffer from high blood pressure.

    McCann BA, Ewing R. Measuring the health effects of sprawl: a national analysis of physical activity, obesity and chronic disease. 2003. Smart Growth America. Surface Transportation Policy Project. Available at: www.smartgrowthamerica.org/report/HealthSprawl8.03.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2009.

  • Negative health implications have been associated with urban sprawl.

    McCann BA, Ewing R. Measuring the health effects of sprawl: a national analysis of physical activity, obesity and chronic disease. 2003. Smart Growth America. Surface Transportation Policy Project. Available at: www.smartgrowthamerica.org/report/HealthSprawl8.03.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2009.