Opinion – Claudio Bernardes: Acceptance and resistance to densification

Due to the evident benefits of densification, urban planners around the world have started to formulate policies that aim to improve the way to use urban land more intensively. While people tend to accept densification as an important urban paradigm, specific projects that adopt these models often generate resistance from local residents.

The densification of a region, invariably, is accompanied by changes in its neighborhood. Although there is often the perception that, with more people living in the same region, the use of existing amenities may be compromised, these projects have the opportunity to promote positive changes, which can result in direct benefits to the region and its residents.

Aesthetic improvements in the area, updated infrastructure and new spaces can produce positive effects, with repercussions on the way residents perceive their neighborhood. On the other hand, when densification also involves low-income housing, for example, local residents often express their concerns – although not always openly – about the influx of low-income people, an increase in crime and the eventual decrease in property values. In fact, a balance must be sought between possible positive and negative effects.

Researchers from the urban policy and spatial development group at the Zurich Institute of Technology, Switzerland, developed a study to understand the mechanisms that guide the rejection or acceptance of models of densification by residents of a given region.

The surveyed residents were divided into four ideological groups: anti-developmentalist; NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), who are against crowding in their neighborhood; general acceptance; and OIMBY– (Only In My Back Yard), those in favor of densification in their neighborhood.

The results of the study reveal the dualism frequently described between acceptance and rejection in places of densification. Most residents support densification in general. But residents classified as NIMBY reject such projects within their own neighborhood. Another significant portion of residents is opposed to densification due to general resistance to development.

Thus, although densification as a general paradigm tends to receive solid support, most residents feel negatively affected when densification projects take place within their own neighborhood.

The categorization of respondents into four levels illustrates why densification projects are often not sustainable. In fact, these projects do not collide with the general public’s lack of acceptance and clash with opposition from residents who are directly affected. This distinction allows for thinking about the different ways of evaluating compaction projects and provides additional nuance to discuss NIMBY behavior and how it affects motivations to reject or accept compaction projects. The study results reveal a large gap between the general acceptance of densification and the local acceptance of these projects.

These findings help to better explain citizen engagement with the issue, and provide several practical implications for planning. The study authors point out that densification strategies are context-dependent. Therefore, planners must first learn about the concrete situations and contextual factors that matter to the community in which the densification project is proposed, and must consider how issues vital to neighborhood life can be enhanced or protected, anticipating , thus, the potential local effects of different proposals, whether positive or linked to negative perceptions.

We must recognize the democratic right to resist densification; but it is necessary to understand that the use of this model in large centers is inevitable and goes through an implementation challenge, which includes a clear understanding of its benefits in specific situations and regions.