International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 10, Issue 04, April 2019, pp. 1828–1836, Article ID: IJCIET_10_04_191
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=4
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication
Scopus Indexed
PARADIGMS FOR SHAPING URBAN
DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPES IN THE WORLD
– A DIAGNOSIS OF THEIR FOCUS AND
CHARACTERISTICS
Gayathri Viswanathan
Ph.D. Research Scholar, School of Architecture, Hindustan Institute of Technology &
Science, OMR, Padur, Chennai, India
Dr. Sheeba Chander
Professor and Head {P & M}- School of Architecture, Hindustan Institute of Technology &
Science, OMR, Padur, Chennai, India
ABSTRACT
Cities are centers of knowledge and sources of growth and innovation and possess
exceptional possibilities for economic development. At the same time, however, the
cities undergo certain transformation due to urbanization and thus need to face the
urban development challenges. The paper discusses briefly on the paradigms
(independent or multiple paradigms) the cities adopt and in over the years how there
has been a paradigm shift that address the urban development issues. The paradigm
shift has been analyzed based on extensive literature review of significant paradigms
that have been implemented in several cities in the world in the last decades. An
extensive study has summed up the tools for analysis- selected parameters and
characteristics of numerous urban development paradigms.
Key words: Urban Development Paradigms – Compact, Resilient, Smart, Sustainable,
Walkable
Cite this Article: Gayathri Viswanathan and Dr. Sheeba Chander, Paradigms for
Shaping Urban Development Landscapes in the World – A Diagnosis of their Focus
and Characteristics, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 10(4),
2019, pp. 1828–1836.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=4
1. INTRODUCTION
The city that is enjoyed today has not come about by accident. It has been shaped by the
foresight and planning of earlier generations. The legacy of their vision is seen in the vibrant
places. But the city of the future cannot be planned with yesterday‟s thinking. As the city
grows and develops, the growth needs to be managed that it responds to long-term patterns of
economic, social and environmental change; that enhance concepts/paradigms including
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1828
editor@iaeme.com
Paradigms for Shaping Urban Development Landscapes in the World – A Diagnosis of their Focus
and Characteristics
liveability, sustainability, resilience, etc. leading to a better quality of life and that capitalize
on opportunities to strengthen the productivity and competitiveness.
2. WORLD URBANIZATION
Urbanization in the world is growing at a faster rate (Figure 1). Urbanization is also critical to
whether a global shift toward sustainable practices within Earth‟s planetary boundaries can be
achieved [1]. The literature also suggests that the urban growth is faster in the developing
countries including in India that has been undergoing a faster urbanization [2]. Because of the
sheer size of the urban population, issues that are being encountered by the cities are also
different to each other. Hence, it is also argued that addressing how to address the urban
development issues in different urban areas has to be looked at it in a different perspective [3].
Urbanization is basically linked to the three pillars of sustainable development: economic
development, social development and environmental protection [4].
Evidences also reveal that the urban areas around the world are facing vast challenges and
modifications than they did 20 years ago. Many cities all over the world are grossly
unprepared for the challenges associated with urbanization [3]. Cities in the developing world
face the toughest challenges, as they will see the vast majority of urban growth over the next
30 years [4] and experience the highest degree of change, often with the lowermost levels of
resources and institutional capabilities.
Figure 1: Global patterns of urbanisation 1995 & 2015
Source: Based on United Nations 2014b
3. PARADIGMS IN ADDRESSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT
CHALLENGES AND THEIR SHIFT
Evidences [5-9] reveal that “city development framework” around the world has been
centered on some “concepts and development paradigms”, that are essential to support
development decision and competitions amongst the cities. They help to find solutions
fostering urban development from single measures to holistic approaches. Actions regarding
adaptation, resilience and sustainable economic growth are features of most of these concepts
towards a good quality of life in cities. Currently, there is no synthetic information about the
variety of these city concepts (like Eco-City, Intelligent City, Smart City, and Renewable
City) found in literature (see Table 1).
Although paradigms/concepts such as „garden city‟, „inclusive city‟, „competitive city‟
and „intelligent city‟ tend to refer to one specific domain, the more commonly used
paradigm/concept tend to have broad, hybrid or ambiguous meanings. This particularly
applies to existing phrases such as „smart cities‟, „sustainable cities‟, „future cities‟ and
„liveable cities‟. The high degree of conceptual crossover and overlap means most concepts
are highly compatible with each other, but reflect different sources or alliances, often with a
desire to suggest conceptual differentiation despite substantive overlap.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1829
editor@iaeme.com
Gayathri Viswanathan and Dr. Sheeba Chander
Table 1 Urban development paradigms practiced in the world
Environmental
Garden cities
Sustainable cities
Eco cities
Green cities
Compact cities
Smart Cities
Social
Economic
Governance
Participated cities
Entrepreneurial cities
Managed cities
Walkable cities
Competitive cities
Intelligent cities
Integrated cities
Productive cities
Productive cities
Inclusive cities
Innovative cities
Efficient cities
Just cities
Business friendly cities
Well-run, well-led cities
Open cities
Global cities
Future cities
Livable cities
Resilient cities
Source: Compiled from -“Government office of science (2014),”What are Future Cities? Origins,
Meanings and Uses”, Catapult future cities, P-12
3.1. Paradigm shift
The review of literature related to paradigm shift suggests that there has been a shift in the
number of paradigms (see Figure 2) in addressing urban development challenges from 1983
onwards. It is also evident that from year 2000 onwards there have been a multiple shift of
paradigms happening throughout the world in addressing the urban development problems.
Cities also adopt many paradigms in an attempt to become better equipped to plan and shape
their futures, as they acquire and build new governance systems, finance tools, data streams,
and city management techniques. Therefore, the science of cities is still emerging and has not
yet generated global language norms. It is also an inter-disciplinary science, and this makes
clarity of concepts harder to achieve.
Figure 2: Paradigm shift perspective
Source: Google Scholar as quoted in -“Government office of science (2014),”What are Future Cities?
Origins, Meanings and Uses”, Catapult future cities, P-13
3.2. Smart City
The various review of a number of literature evidences suggest that smartness in a city means
different things to different people. It could be smart design, smart utilities, smart housing,
smart mobility, smart technology etc. Thus, it is rather challenging to give a definition of a
smart city. The paradigm of smart cities was originated at the time when the entire world was
facing one of the worst economic crises. In 2008, IBM began work on a 'smarter cities'
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1830
editor@iaeme.com
Paradigms for Shaping Urban Development Landscapes in the World – A Diagnosis of their Focus
and Characteristics
concept as part of its Smarter Planet initiative. By the beginning of 2009, the concept had
enchanted the imagination of numerous nations across the globe.
There are several fields of activity, which are described in literature in relation to the term
Smart City: industry, education, participation, technical infrastructure, various „soft factors‟.
Giffinger et.al (2007) [7], argued that a city performs well in a forward-looking way with the
six characteristics of smart cities such as: Smart Economy; Smart Mobility; Smart
Environment; Smart People; Smart Living; and Smart Governance. The smart city paradigm
also emphasizes the importance of four pillars viz., Institutional Infrastructure (including
Governance), Physical Infrastructure, Social Infrastructure and Economic Infrastructure.
Evidences also reveal that smart city technologies and paradigms have been implemented
in cities of Santander (Spain), Southampton, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Seattle, Helsinki
(Finland), Singapore, Stockholm, and 100 cities in India under Smart Cities Mission,
Government of India.
3.3. Compact City
The literature studies including Elkin et.al., (1991) [10] suggest that a compact city is the
“intensification of the use of space in the city with higher residential densities and
centralization”. The urban form of the compact city, referred to as the compact urban form, is
generally supposed to promote environmental, social and global sustainability by increasing
the compactness of the built up area and residential population, intensifying urban economic,
social and cultural activities and manipulating urban size, form, structure and settlement
systems. Jabareen (2006) [11], states that prior to the international promotion of the
sustainable development agenda, the idea of a radiant city was proposed by Le Corbusier‟s La
Ville Radieuse. Montavon, et al., (2006) [12] , stated that the paradigm involved clearance
and building skyscrapers to allow the combination of high population densities and large open
spaces.
Following Le Corbusier‟s ideas of the radiant city, mathematician Saaty et.al. (1973) [13]
proposed that the compact city‟s vision was to improve the quality of life but not at the
expense of the “next generation”. The compact city development leads to creation of diverse,
compact, and mixed neighborhoods. Bob et.al.,(2004) [8] stated that everyday activities, such
as housing, work, schools, shops and other amenities, are all ideally within nineteen minutes
walking distance of each other. Compact city includes a focus on: urban regeneration; the
revitalization of urban cores; the promotion of public and non-motorized transport; extensive
environmental controls; and high standards of urban management. The objective is to provide
a pleasing, contented, remarkable and safe environment for pedestrians and to arrange for
substitutes to car use such as public, transit and cycling facilities. Cities including
Amsterdam, Brazil, Melbourne, Paris, Portland, Vancouver, and so forth have implemented
the paradigm of compact city.
3.4. Walkable City
A number of studies suggest that walkability is a paradigm, which is known as measurement
of the pedestrian-friendly‟s degree of an area. This term recently have been focused by urban
designer and planners to make a sustain environment to communicating, recreation, and
shopping by pedestrian base. Abley (2005) [14] states that walkability has health,
environmental, and economic benefits. Features influencing walkability comprise the
presence or absence and quality of footpaths, sidewalks or other pedestrian rights-of-way,
traffic and road conditions, land use patterns, building accessibility, and safety, among others.
Piotr Czech et.al., (2017) [5] states that to claim that a city is “walkable”, it is necessary to
meet four basic conditions: security, functionality, attractiveness and convenience.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1831
editor@iaeme.com
Gayathri Viswanathan and Dr. Sheeba Chander
According to the main aim of the research to find out the effects of walkable environment
on sustainability, it is considerable that walkability has been known as a foundation for a
sustainable city. Walking and bicycling are known as green types of transportation have low
impact on environment and has an important role on congestion reducing. Aida (2016) [15],
stated that walkability and built environment have strong relationship together by social and
physical variables, which make a vital and sustainable space. Walkable cities including
Stroget, Melbourne, Hudson, (Ohio), Stockholm, Amsterdam, Adelaide, etc., are also
compact and sustainable.
3.5. Sustainable City
The various review of a number of literature evidences suggest that sustainable development
has been defined the paradigm of sustainable development was originally synonymous with
that of sustainability and is often still used in that way. According to different sources, the
concept of sustainability in the sense of a balance between resource consumption and
reproduction was however applied to forestry already in the 12th to 16th century”. Kahn
(1995) [17] states that the paradigm of „sustainable development‟ described in Agenda 21, in
fact, rests on three conceptual pillars such as „economic sustainability‟, „social sustainability‟,
and „environmental sustainability‟. Basiago (1999) [9] stated that sustainable cities deliver the
building blocks for transforming societies into a low carbon economy with increasing socioeconomic benefits, as citizens gain access to services and opportunities to improve their
quality of life and financial outlook for cities including Frankfurt, London, Copenhagen,
Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Berlin, Seoul, Hong Kong, Madrid, Singapore, and so forth.
3.6. Resilient City
The literature studies suggest that resilience refers to equipping cities to face future shocks
and stresses from climate change and depleted oil and fuel sources and make it through crises.
Resilience replicates a city's capability to persevere in the face of emergency, to continue its
core mission despite daunting challenges. Coaffee et.al, (2008) [6] states cities, particularly
in the developing world, face numerous challenges in responding to a growing urban
population by meeting rising demands for housing, food, water, transportation and other
infrastructure or services that ensure people‟s wellbeing. Moreover, these cities need to
contend with the implications of known natural hazards and increasingly unpredictable
weather as a result of climate change. Vale (2014) [19] states that the focus of the resilient concept is to
activate protective qualities and processes at the individual, community, institutional and
systems level to engage with hazards and support with each other in order to maintain or
recover functionality and thrive while adapting to a new equilibrium and minimizing the
accumulation of pre-existing or additional risks and vulnerabilities. Resilient cities such as
Stockholm, Copenhagen, San Francisco, Tokyo, Chennai, Melbourne, Paris, etc., promote
sustainable development, well-being and inclusive growth.
4. DIAGNOSIS OF PARADIGMS
The forces of globalization place cities into direct competition with one another, cities are
required to deliver thriving economies, great quality of life, political stability, business
friendliness and a reduced ecological influence in order to be competitive not only on a
regional or national scale, but globally. Therefore, it is Important to understand the kind of
solutions that would be suitable to different cities. Understanding of that kind of a paradigm is
very important. Historically, the solutions were given for different challenges faced by the
cities in different parts of the world. Different paradigms were used for addressing the
challenges of urban areas. For instance, the green cities paradigm dwelled upon actions to
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1832
editor@iaeme.com
Paradigms for Shaping Urban Development Landscapes in the World – A Diagnosis of their Focus
and Characteristics
bring in making the cities: more greener; use of non-renewable energy; sources in bringing
the cities more manageable; and approaches, which would bring in reduction in carbon
footprint by adopting environment friendly technologies, and so forth. An attempt has been
made to assess all paradigms adopted in the world using following 7 parameters: (1) Focus;
(2) Degree of comprehensiveness; (3) Scale & coverage; (4) Land use efficiency; (5)
Transportation efficiency; (6) Low Carbon Emission & efficient urban form; and (7) Sociocultural efficiency. The findings of the assessment are presented in the ensuring section.
4.1. Focus & Degree of Comprehensiveness
By and large, most paradigms focus on four key development areas namely Physical
Development, Economic Development, Social Development, and Ecological Development.
Some paradigm focuses on all four some less than four key areas. Hence, large the coverage
the higher be the comprehensiveness of the focus of the paradigm Therefore, the parameter
Focus of Paradigm (Physical Development, Economic Development, Social Development,
Ecological Development) and Degree of Comprehensiveness of the Paradigm have been used
to assess various paradigms using the scoring criteria of High (all 4 focus areas- Physical +
Economic + Social + Ecological Development) Medium(any 3 focus areas), Low (any 2 focus
areas )and Very low (Any one focus area).
Sl.No.
Degree of
Comprehensiveness
Paradigm
1
Smart city
Medium
2
Compact city
Low
3
Walkable City
Low
4
Sustainable city
High
5
Resilient City
Medium
Focus of the Paradigm
Physical, Social and Ecological
Development
Economic, Social and Ecological
Development
Economic and Ecological Development
Physical, Economic, Social and
Ecological Development
Physical, Social and Ecological
Development
Source – Researcher‟s Analysis.
4.2. Scale/Coverage:
Evidences also reveal that some paradigm covers comprehensively the challenges of all levels
– city region level, metropolitan area level, sub-city level and neighbourhood level.
Therefore, the parameter Scale / Coverage of the Paradigm has been analyzed at the City
Region Level (High), City / Metropolitan area level (Medium), Sub-city level (Low) and the
Neighbourhood level (very low).
Sl.No.
Paradigm
Scale
1
Smart city
High
2
Compact city
3
Walkable City
Low - Very
Low
Very Low
4
Sustainable city
High
5
Resilient City
Medium
Source – Researcher‟s Analysis.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
Coverage of the Paradigm
Sub-city (part of city) levels. However, limited
components of smart city have been implemented
in city level.
Neighbourhood and sub-city (part of city) levels.
Neighbourhood levels.
Sub-city (part of city) levels. However, limited
components of smart city have been implemented
in city level.
City / metropolitan level.
1833
editor@iaeme.com
Gayathri Viswanathan and Dr. Sheeba Chander
4.3. Land use efficiency
Some paradigms promote all types of land use efficiency syndromes such as High density &
Mixed Use built form; Medium density & Mixed Use built form; Low density & Mixed Use
built form; and very low density single use built form. Therefore, the parameter land use
efficiency promoted by the Paradigm has been analyzed with respect to the following
indicators: High density & Mixed Use built form (High);Medium density & Mixed Use built
form (Medium);Low density & Mixed Use built form (Low) and very low density single use
built form (very low).
Sl.
No.
1
2
Smart city
Compact city
Scale of
efficiency
High
High
3
Walkable City
High
4
Sustainable city
Medium
5
Resilient City
Medium
Paradigm
Land use efficiency promoted by the Paradigm
High density and mixed use development
High density and mixed use development.
High density and mixed use development to promote
walking
Medium density with energy efficiency development
Promotes medium density with energy efficiency
development.
Source – Researcher‟s Analysis.
4.4. Transportation efficiency
The literature also reveals that some paradigms promote transportation efficiency through all
modes including public transit, walkability, and safety & security, and some limits to few of
them. The Transportation efficiency of the Paradigm has been examined by the factors: Public
transit+ Walkability+ Safety & Security (High); Public transit + Low walkability (Medium);
High Private transport + Low walkability (Low); and High Private transport (Very Low).
Sl.No.
Scale of
efficiency
Paradigm
1
Smart city
High
2
Compact city
High
3
Walkable City
High
4
Sustainable city
Medium
5
Resilient City
Medium
Transportation efficiency of the Paradigm
Intelligent transport and mobility systems, traffic
and parking management.
Public transportation, use of bicycle and walkability
as the focus.
Use of bicycle and walkability.
Public transportation, use of bicycle and low
walkability as its focus.
Public transportation, use of bicycle and low
walkability as its focus.
Source – Researcher‟s Analysis.
4.5. Low Carbon Emission & Efficient urban form
Low Carbon Emission & efficient urban form promoted by the Paradigm is evaluated by the
following criteria: Substantial open space + Green buildings+ Smart Technology +
Walkability (High); Medium Open space + Green buildings+ Smart Technology +Walkability
(Medium); Fewer area under open spaces (Low); and No open spaces (very Low).
Sl.No.
Paradigm
Scale
1
Smart city
Low
2
Compact city
Medium
3
Walkable
City
High
Low Carbon Emission & efficient urban form promoted
by the Paradigm
Green technology, smart technology, substantial open space
and walkability concepts.
Green technology, smart technology, medium area under
open space and walkability concepts.
Fewer areas under open space low carbon emission due to
walkability and cycling.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1834
editor@iaeme.com
Paradigms for Shaping Urban Development Landscapes in the World – A Diagnosis of their Focus
and Characteristics
Sl.No.
Paradigm
Scale
4
Sustainable
city
Medium
5
Resilient City
Medium
Low Carbon Emission & efficient urban form promoted
by the Paradigm
Green technology, smart technology, medium area under
open space and walkability concepts.
Green technology, smart technology, medium area under
open space and walkability concepts.
Source – Researcher‟s Analysis.
4.6. Socio-cultural efficiency promoted
Socio-cultural efficiency promoted by the Paradigm is considered as per the following
features: Affordable housing + slums + gender equity (High); Affordable housing + slums
(Medium); Affordable housing (Low); and None (Very Low).
Sl.No.
Paradigm
1
2
3
Scale of
efficiency
High
High
Medium
Smart city
Compact city
Walkable City
Sustainable
4
Medium
city
5
Resilient City Medium
Source – Researcher‟s Analysis.
Socio-cultural efficiency promoted by the Paradigm
Affordability and socio cultural equivalence
Affordability and socio cultural equivalence.
Vegetation to control urban microclimate and affordability.
Vegetation to control urban microclimate and affordability.
Vegetation to control urban microclimate and affordability.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion emerges out of the above discussed assessment of various paradigms are as
follows:

The characteristics of most Urban Development Paradigms are unique. Their focus are
limited to addressing strategies for either one or combination of two areas such as physical,
social, ecological and economic development. They addressed the need for evolving a
comprehensive paradigm, which could be addressing all focus areas.

Available literature reveals the need for identifying appropriate development paradigm for
coastal cities, which would address the development of well-planned and managed urban
environments, not only for reasons of efficiency and economics, but also to avoid inflicting
environmental degradation that causes the deterioration of the quality of life and human
health.

Cities are dynamic complex systems which require energy, water, food and other resources in
order to work and generate diverse activities, with the aim of offering a better socio-economic
climate and quality of life. Thus, previous studies establishes the need for further research
addressing integrated management and sustainable development of cities, including science,
technology, architecture, socio-economics and planning, all contributing to provide support to
decision makers.
REFERENCES
[1]
WBGU, Humanity on the move: Unlocking the transformative power of cities. German
Advisory Council on Global Change, 2016.
[2]
WHO, Global Health Observatory (GHO): Urban population growth, 2014.
[3]
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), Urbanization and
Development: Emerging Futures World Cities Report 2016.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1835
editor@iaeme.com
Gayathri Viswanathan and Dr. Sheeba Chander
[4]
United Nations, D. O., World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, United Nations
2014.
[5]
Piotr Czech, Katarzyna Turoń & Michał Juzek , The concept of a walkable city as an
alternative form of urban mobility, Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology. Series Transport, 2017.
[6]
J. Coaffee, the everyday resilience of the city: how cities respond to terrorism and disaster
(D. Murakami Wood, P. Rogers ,2008) Palgrave Macmillan
[7]
Rudolf Giffinger, smart cities - ranking of european medium-sized cities, (Christian
Fertner, Hans Kramar, Robert Kalasek, 2007) Centre of Regional Science Vienna Institute
of Technology.
[8]
Ernest Healy and Bob Birrell, Housing and community in the compact city, Australian
Housing and Urban Research Institute, Swinburne-Monash Research Centre, 2004.
[9]
Basiago A. D, economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory
and urban planning practice (1999) Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston.
[10]
Elkin, T., McLaren, D., & Hillman, M., Reviving the city: Towards sustainable urban
development. London: Friends of the Eart, Creative Education, scientific researcher, 1991.
[11]
Yosef Rafeq Jabareen Sustainable Urban Forms Their Typologies, Models, and Concepts,
Journal of Planning Education and Research, Sage, 2006.
[12]
Vicky Cheng, Koen Steemers, Marylène Montavon and Raphaël Compagnon , Compact
cities in a sustainable manner, 2nd International Solar Cities Congress, Oxford, 2006.
[13]
George B., compact city: a plan for a livable urban environment (Dantzing, Thomas L.
Saaty 1973) San Francisco.
[14]
Steve Abley , Measuring walkability , Walkability Scoping Paper, 2005.
[15]
Reihaneh Rafiemanzelata, Maryam Imani Emadib & Aida Jalal Kamalia; City
sustainability: the influence of walkability on built Environments, Science Direct,
Transportation Research Procedia, 2016.
[16]
European Commission, Making our cities attractive and sustainable: How the EU
contributes to improving the urban environment, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union, 2010.
[17]
M. Adil Khan, International Sustainable Development Research Conference, Manchester,
UK, “Sustainable development: The key concepts, issues and implications (1995).
[18]
Hart, Maureen. guide to sustainable community indicators 2nd edition (1999) North
Andover Mass Hart Environmental Data.
[19]
Vale, L. J., The Politics of Resilient Cities: Whose Resilience and Whose City? Building
Research & Information, 2014.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1836
editor@iaeme.com