Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-8 (section)

==== 8.4.2.3 Urban Form, Growth, and Sustainable Development ====

<div id="h3-10-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Spatial planning for compact urban form is a system-wide intervention ( [[#Sethi--2020|Sethi et al. 2020]] ) and has potential to be combined with sustainable development objectives while pursuing climate mitigation for urban systems ( [[#Große--2016|Große et al. 2016]] ; [[#Cheshmehzangi--2017|Cheshmehzangi and Butters 2017]] ; [[#Facchini--2017|Facchini et al. 2017]] ; [[#Lwasa--2017|Lwasa 2017]] ; [[#Stokes--2019|Stokes and Seto 2019]] ). Compact urban form can enable positive impacts on employment and green growth given that the local economy is decoupled from GHG emissions and related parameters while the concentration of people and activity can increase productivity based on both proximity and efficiency ( [[#Lee--2017|Lee and Erickson 2017]] ; [[#Salat--2017|Salat et al. 2017]] ; [[#Gao--2018|Gao and Newman 2018]] ; [[#Han--2018|Han et al. 2018]] ; [[#Li--2018|Li and Liu 2018]] ; [[#Lall--2021|Lall et al. 2021]] ).

Public acceptance can have a positive impact on integrated spatial planning especially when there is a process of co-design ( [[#Grandin--2018|Grandin et al. 2018]] ; [[#Webb--2018|Webb et al. 2018]] ). The quality of spatial planning can also increase co-benefits for health and well-being, including decisions to balance urban green areas with density ( [[#Li--2016|Li et al. 2016]] ; [[#Sorkin--2018|Sorkin 2018]] ; [[#Pierer--2019|Pierer and Creutzig 2019]] ). The distributional effects of spatial planning can depend on the policy tools that shape the influence of urban densification on affordable housing while evidence for transit-induced gentrification is found to be partial and inconclusive ( [[#Chava--2016|Chava and Newman 2016]] ; [[#Jagarnath--2018|Jagarnath and Thambiran 2018]] ; [[#Padeiro--2019|Padeiro et al. 2019]] ; [[#Debrunner--2020|Debrunner and Hartmann 2020]] ) (Sections 8.2 and 8.4.4).

Reducing GHG emissions across different urban growth typologies (Figure 8.20) depends in part on the ability to integrate opportunities for climate mitigation with co-benefits for health and well-being ( [[#Grandin--2018|Grandin et al. 2018]] ). At the same time, requirements for institutional capacity and governance for cross-sector coordination for integrated urban planning is high given the complex relations between urban mobility, buildings, energy systems, water systems, ecosystem services, other urban sectors, and climate adaptation ( [[#Große--2016|Große et al. 2016]] ; [[#Castán%20Broto--2017a|Castán Broto 2017a]] ; [[#Endo--2017|Endo et al. 2017]] ; [[#Geneletti--2017|Geneletti et al. 2017]] ). The capacity for implementing land-use zoning and regulations in a way that is consistent with supporting spatial planning for compact urban form is not equal across urban areas and depends on different contexts as well as institutional capacities ( [[#Bakır--2018|Bakır et al. 2018]] ; [[#Deng--2018|Deng et al. 2018]] ; [[#Shen--2019|Shen et al. 2019]] ).

Currently, integrating spatial planning, urban form, and infrastructure in urban mitigation strategies remains limited in mainstream practices, including in urban areas targeting an emissions reduction of 36–80% in the next decades ( [[#Asarpota--2020|Asarpota and Nadin 2020]] ). Capacity building for integrated spatial planning for urban mitigation includes increasing collaboration among city departments and with civil society to develop robust mitigation strategies, bringing together civil engineers, architects, urban designers, public policy and spatial planners, and enhancing the education of urban professionals ( [[#Asarpota--2020|Asarpota and Nadin 2020]] ) ( [[#8.5|Section 8.5]] ).

Spatial planning for compact urban form is a prerequisite for efficient urban infrastructure, including district heating and/or cooling networks ( [[#Swilling--2018|Swilling et al. 2018]] ; [[#Möller--2019|Möller et al. 2019]] ; [[#Persson--2019|Persson et al. 2019]] ; [[#UNEP%20IRP--2020|UNEP IRP 2020]] ). District heating and cooling networks benefit from urban design parameters, including density, block area, and elongation that represent the influence of urban density on energy density ( [[#Fonseca--2015|Fonseca and Schlueter 2015]] ; [[#Shi--2020|Shi et al. 2020]] ). Heat- demand density is a function of both population density and heat demand per capita and can be equally present in urban areas with high population density or high heat demand per capita ( [[#Möller--2019|Möller et al. 2019]] ; [[#Persson--2019|Persson et al. 2019]] ). Low-temperature networks that utilise waste heat or renewable energy can provide an option to avoid carbon lock-in to fossil fuels while layout and eco-design principles can further optimise such networks ( [[#Gang--2016|Gang et al. 2016]] ; [[#Buffa--2019|Buffa et al. 2019]] ; [[#Dominković--2019|Dominković and Krajačić 2019]] ). Replacing gas-based heating and cooling with electrified district heating and cooling networks, for instance, provides 65% emissions reductions also involving carbon-aware scheduling for grid power ( [[#De%20Chalendar--2019|De Chalendar et al. 2019]] ). The environmental and ecological benefits increase through the interaction of urban energy and spatial planning ( [[#Tuomisto--2015|Tuomisto et al. 2015]] ; [[#Bartolozzi--2017|Bartolozzi et al. 2017]] ; [[#Dénarié--2018|Dénarié et al. 2018]] ; [[#Zhai--2020|Zhai et al. 2020]] ). These interactions include support for demand-side flexibility, spatial planning using geographic information systems, and access to renewable and urban waste heat sources ( [[#Möller--2018|Möller et al. 2018]] ; [[#REN21--2020|REN21 2020]] ; [[#Sorknæs--2020|Sorknæs et al. 2020]] ; [[#Dorotić--2019|Dorotić et al. 2019]] ) (see Table 8.SM.2 for other references).

<div id="8.4.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="electrification-and-switching-to-net-zero-emissions-resources"></span>