How city design and land development drive climate change

Countries worldwide are intensifying their efforts to curb carbon emissions, yet a critical variable remains underexamined: the physical layout of land and cities. From sprawling suburbs to vertical skylines, the way human settlements are organized is emerging as a decisive factor in the planet’s carbon future.

A new study published in Land synthesizes two decades of international research to unveil how human interventions in land use and urban form significantly influence carbon emissions. Compiling insights from 2000 of the most relevant publications between 2000 and 2024, the authors apply both scientometric and qualitative methodologies to uncover thematic patterns, dominant research approaches, and consensus points in the academic landscape of low-carbon spatial planning.

The paper, titled "Land Use, Spatial Planning, and Their Influence on Carbon Emissions: A Comprehensive Review", shows that the expansion of human settlement, changes in land cover, and the structural design of cities are not merely local development concerns but central factors in the global carbon budget. 

How does land use change influence carbon stocks?

Land use and land cover change (LULCC) directly affect the carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems, particularly in vegetation and soil. As agricultural demands, urbanization, and infrastructural developments reshape landscapes, these alterations contribute to significant carbon stock fluctuations. The study highlights that initial research focused on the conversion of forests, grasslands, and wetlands to croplands, a pattern that led to diminished soil organic carbon (SOC) densities. Conversely, more recent efforts like afforestation and wetland restoration have helped partially reverse this trend.

Temporal and spatial scales matter. At the global level, long-term datasets reveal how different land management regimes impact carbon sequestration over centuries. In China, for instance, land conversion practices over 300 years, from agrarian expansion to urban sprawl post-1980, showed distinct carbon emission patterns. Even where land use types remain constant, intra-type changes such as shifts in tree species, biodiversity levels, and soil nitrogen content also meaningfully impact carbon dynamics.

These findings make clear that carbon accounting must not only consider land categories but also ecological nuances within each category. The use of comparative analysis, both paired sample and cross-sectional, is central to this line of inquiry.

How does urban structure affect emissions?

Beyond land type changes, the configuration of cities themselves has become a dominant research topic. Urban spatial form, how cities are laid out in terms of density, design, and functionality, plays a pivotal role in shaping transportation and building emissions. The review identifies several measurement frameworks used by researchers, including the “5Ds”: density, diversity, design, distance to transit, and destination accessibility.

Studies suggest that denser, more mixed-use and transit-accessible urban forms correlate with lower vehicle miles traveled and thus lower transport emissions. Similarly, building morphology, including layout, spacing, and orientation, directly affects energy use through its influence on natural lighting, ventilation, and urban heat island effects.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach, however. The review finds ongoing debate around monocentric versus polycentric city models. While monocentric cities may centralize public transit, polycentric forms potentially reduce commute distances by distributing job centers more evenly. This complexity underscores the importance of context-specific planning.

Methodologically, regression and spatial analysis dominate this topic. Regression models examine direct relationships between spatial indicators and emissions, while spatial models such as the spatial lag and Durbin models capture complex interdependencies between adjacent urban areas.

What are the pathways for low-carbon spatial planning?

The study also focuses on practical interventions - how spatial planning can reduce emissions and enhance carbon sinks. This involves both land use restructuring and urban form optimization. Planning strategies include promoting reforestation, preserving wetlands, and constraining urban sprawl through development boundaries.

Models such as InVEST, PLUS, and FLUS simulate future land use under different policy regimes, allowing planners to estimate carbon outcomes of various development pathways. In China, for example, multi-objective planning models have been employed to design land-use structures that either maximize organic carbon stocks or minimize emissions.

International variation remains stark. Countries differ not only in ecological baselines but also in institutional architectures. China's centralized five-tier spatial planning system contrasts sharply with the decentralized, locally driven planning systems in countries like the USA. These differences shape what kinds of low-carbon strategies are feasible or enforceable.

The study also stresses the need to refine emission attribution methods. Three major approaches are outlined: upscale (bottom-up via geographic data), homoscale (direct linkage between land type and activity), and downscale (top-down using proxies like GDP or nighttime light data). Each has trade-offs in terms of accuracy, cost, and applicability.

Call for deeper, more nuanced research

Despite the growing body of literature, the authors identify several research gaps that must be addressed. Too many studies assume that all emissions within a land area are attributable to land use itself, neglecting the broader socio-economic systems driving activity. Additionally, most research occurs at macro scales, leaving city-level or community-scale dynamics underexplored.

Future work should account for differing national governance systems, market structures, and land tenure arrangements that shape planning effectiveness. Also critical is examining the sensitivity of emissions to specific land attributes, distinguishing between directly and indirectly related carbon fluxes.

The authors call for enhanced research on low-carbon planning at meso- and micro-scales, covering the 10–15 year planning horizons most relevant to actual policy implementation.