This chapter explores the critical role of spatial planning in achieving climate neutrality by shaping urban form, infrastructure and resource use. It examines how land use, building practices and transport systems in particular can contribute to both climate mitigation and adaptation.
Spatial planning is of particular importance for cities embarking on the pathway towards climate neutrality and responding to the challenges posed by climate change at the urban, regional and national level. As noted by several authors (Davoudi et al., 2010; Lee & Jung, 2023; Nowak et al., 2023), spatial planning is instrumental in relation both to climate adaptation (e.g. measures to adjust to the present and future impacts of climate change) and mitigation measures (action to reduce the impact of human activity on the climate system, primarily through reducing greenhouse gas emissions) (CSE & TCPA, 2023). Accordingly, it plays a pivotal role in achieving climate neutrality in cities by shaping the way land, resources and infrastructure are used and developed.
Spatial planning, as “the processes through which options for the development of places are envisioned, assessed, negotiated, agreed and expressed in policy, regulatory and investment terms” (Davoudi et al., 2010, p. 14), has a cross-sectoral nature. That arises from its broad scope, encompassing regulatory frameworks that shape urban form and influence multiple sectors. Urban form comprises the way land is used, density is distributed, transport is organised and housing is developed (Burton et al., 2000). Urban-built forms, particularly buildings and transport systems, are major contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for over one-third of total carbon emissions and 71% of energy-related carbon emissions (Huang et al., 2020). Their significant environmental impact highlights the crucial role they play in shaping cities’ paths towards climate neutrality. Recognising that, this study focuses on three key dimensions of spatial planning – land use, buildings and construction, and transport and mobility – and examines how these interrelated sectors can drive the transition towards climate neutrality and sustainable urban development.
Land use
When examining the multifaceted relationship between land use and climate neutrality, one of the most enduring debates in the relevant literature centres on the dichotomy between compact cities and urban sprawl. This discourse highlights land use, transport and urbanisation patterns as key factors influencing carbon emissions and broader environmental impacts.
Suburban sprawl, defined as the uncontrolled expansion of urban areas into adjacent agricultural or natural landscapes, is typically characterised by low-density development and limited land use diversity. Historically, suburban sprawl has been most prominent in non-European countries, particularly the United States (Patacchini et al., 2009). Beginning in the early 20th century, this trend was fuelled by extensive suburbanisation, the rise of private car ownership and cultural preferences for single-family homes with private gardens – factors that set it apart from the more compact urban development patterns seen in Europe. However, since the 1950s, suburban sprawl has become an increasingly common phenomenon in Europe as well, particularly in the central and southern regions (Ludlow, 2006). Even Nordic cities, which are often considered leaders in sustainable urban planning, are not immune to the pressures of sprawl. As noted by Madureira & Möllers (2005), common indicators of urban sprawl in Scandinavian countries include the presence of satellite towns functioning as residential suburbs for larger nearby cities, such as Oslo, Malmö, Lund or Copenhagen. These areas are characterised by low-density housing, limited mixed-use development, linear growth along rail lines and railway corridors and a high reliance on commuting and automobile use. Another notable manifestation of sprawl in Nordic countries is expansion of the second-home phenomenon, often referred to as “recreational sprawl”. Recent studies have highlighted the environmental consequences of this trend, particularly in Norway, where modern second homes have been found to significantly impact mobility patterns and housing consumption, contributing to increased carbon emissions and environmental degradation (Xue et al., 2020). This underscores the global relevance of the compact city versus sprawl debate, emphasising the need for sustainable land use policies to mitigate the climate impacts of urbanisation.
Sprawl tendencies pose critical challenges for climate neutrality due to increased energy demand, land and soil consumption, rising car use and, as a result, growing GHG emissions. As a consequence, sprawl is also considered harmful for people’s living conditions and quality of life. It is also worth noting that sprawl has been identified as one of the main drivers behind the strong socio-economic and spatial segregation patterns that are traditionally much more marked in North American cities than in European ones (Arbaci, 2019).
In order to respond to the challenges of suburban sprawl and to the growing need to reduce carbon emissions in the face of the climate crisis, cities in Europe and beyond are increasingly adopting compact city strategies. Indeed, especially since the Brundtland report (WCED, 1987), discourse around sustainable urban forms has focused to a strong degree on the compact city as – often unquestionably – considered the most sustainable way to develop contemporary cities (Hofstad, 2012; OECD, 2012) and to achieve climate neutrality. The main characteristic of the compact city model is the concentration of development within already built-up areas in order to prevent urban sprawl. Such an approach to land use is considered beneficial primarily from an environmental sustainability perspective. First, it allows for the creation of an efficient transport system, which encourages walkability and the use of bikes and public transport (reducing car-dependent travel and associated emissions) (Næss et al., 2011). Second, it limits development on natural land and farmland (OECD, 2012). This aspect is of great importance considering that 1) land take (i.e. the loss of undeveloped land) is highly relevant to biodiversity, which protects ecosystem services and whose loss is one of the most concerning trends in the context of climate change (European Commission, 2016) and 2) land consumption is a growing trend, even in contexts with declining populations (Sanchez & Arango-Franco, 2018).
It should be noted that while environmental arguments offer the strongest rationale for the adoption of compact city strategies, there are also important benefits with respect to the social and economic dimensions of urban sustainability. From an economic perspective, the compact city model is often regarded as more cost-effective than low-density development, requiring lower investment in infrastructure. Additionally, compact cities are seen as attractive hubs for investment and as catalysts for creative and green industries (OECD, 2012). This makes the compact city approach a key strategy for fostering urban green growth (OECD, 2012). With respect to social sustainability, compactness is linked to spatial and social proximity, improved accessibility of transport facilities and urban opportunities and to better conditions for the creation of more socially mixed communities (Ståhle, 2017) .
While less environmentally detrimental than sprawl for the reasons described above, development of compact cities and related approaches also present some environmental challenges and trade-offs that concern not only the environmental but also the social and economic dimensions of urban sustainability (Westerink et al., 2013). In terms of the environmental dimension, the relationship between the degree of compactness and carbon emissions has not yet been clarified. While there is strong evidence supporting the positive impacts that compactness has on lowering energy consumption in mobility, the effect of the compact city on GHG emissions remains much less clear (Muñiz & Rojas, 2019). Indeed, compactness might lead to an increase of the heat island effect and inner-city pollution due to higher congestion and reduced green areas and tree coverage, leading to an increase in carbon emissions. Furthermore, scholars discuss the rebound effects of the compact city (Næss et al., 2020). For example, higher density, often resulting in congestion and reduced accessibility of natural surroundings, might lead to higher mobility during holidays, with impacts on transport and housing emissions. Furthermore, social benefits attributed to compact city strategies are highly controversial and the subject of debate in the relevant literature. For example, Bramley and Power (2009) argue that increased density leads to better access to service and amenities, improved interactions with neighbours, a stronger sense of community and reduced segregation based on income and ethnic background. Conversely, other studies identify exclusion as a common outcome of planning approaches that aim to increase density and accessibility but often benefit only the well-off. For example, Rérat (2012), explores how new compact developments in Swiss cities are often accessible only to well-off social groups, leading to social exclusion and to “new-build gentrification”, i.e. a gentrification process driven by the development of new areas with poor housing affordability.
Buildings and construction
Spatial planning plays a critical role in advancing climate neutrality within the buildings and construction sector through various mechanisms. One key aspect is its influence on where and how buildings are constructed, achieved through zoning and local planning. By promoting higher-density, mixed-use developments in urban areas, spatial planning can reduce the need for new construction on greenfield sites. This helps curb expansion of the built environment into undeveloped areas, thereby preserving natural habitats and open spaces (Næss et al., 2020). Moreover, zoning, land use and building regulations can mandate sustainable building practices, including energy-efficient designs, specific energy requirements, the use of green building materials and sustainable landscaping. These measures apply to both new construction projects and ecological retrofitting of existing buildings (Cavicchia et al., 2023).
Buildings are among the largest consumers of energy and contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in cities, primarily due to heating, cooling and construction activities. In 2019, the buildings sector was responsible for 21% of global GHG emissions. Of this, 57% were indirect emissions from offsite electricity and heat generation, 24% were direct onsite emissions and 18% were embodied emissions tied to materials like cement and steel (IPCC, 2022). In that same year, buildings accounted for 31% of global final energy demand, with residential buildings consuming approximately 70% of this total (IPCC, 2022).
Poorly designed and inefficient buildings contribute significantly to energy waste and emissions. Retrofitting existing buildings with improved insulation, energy-efficient windows and advanced systems can dramatically lower energy demand. Additionally, planning for net-zero or positive-energy buildings – i.e. structures that generate as much or more energy than they consume – can reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Using sustainable materials such as timber or recycled steel and adopting green building practices further decreases construction-related emissions. However, it is crucial to point out that, despite these strategies, the buildings sector is not on track to achieve the European goal of climate neutrality by 2050. The EU Buildings Climate Tracker indicates that, as of 2022, progress was lagging significantly behind the necessary decarbonisation pathway, underscoring the urgent need for accelerated action and more ambitious policies.
Transport and mobility
Transport is one of the leading contributors to urban emissions, particularly due to private vehicles powered by fossil fuels. (Statista, 2022). Car-dependent urban designs perpetuate high emissions, congestion and air pollution, undermining climate goals. Travel patterns are largely influenced by land use arrangement. Spatial planning can influence where transport hubs, such as airports, train stations and bus terminals, are located. Strategic placement of these hubs can reduce the need for long commutes and decrease the environmental impact of private cars, especially for short trips (Huang et al., 2020). Additionally, extensive literature on the compact city model and mixed-use zoning explores how proximity to public transport can encourage people to use that option instead of relying on private vehicles (Ibraeva et al., 2021). Spatial planning can promote transit-oriented development (TOD), which involves designing urban areas and communities to be easily accessible by public transport. TOD typically encourages higher-density development around public transport stops, making it convenient for residents to use buses, trams or trains. This is likely to reduce demand for individual car travel, thus lowering greenhouse gas emissions associated with transport. Further strategic steps include integrating public transport systems, cycling networks and pedestrian zones to reduce reliance on cars, encouraging high-density development near public transport hubs to minimise the need for car travel and planning for charging infrastructure to support the transition to electric vehicles (EVs), thereby reducing transport emissions. Leveraging of technology for shared mobility services, real-time public transport information and traffic optimisation also has the potential to reduce emissions.
Land use, buildings and transport collectively shape the urban environment, influence daily lifestyles and account for a large share of urban emissions. Effective planning in these sectors may allow cities to transition to low-carbon, resilient and sustainable systems. When planned in an integrated way, these sectors can have a multiplier effect, amplifying the benefits of individual measures. As the literature often suggests, compact land use planning supports efficient public transport systems, while well-designed buildings complement sustainable transport by minimising energy demand. Therefore, these sectors have been identified in the project as crucial to understanding how spatial planning can affect climate neutrality.