T he form of the contemporary city has been perceived as a source of environmental problems (Alberti et al. 2003; Beatley and Manning 1997 ; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2001; Haughton 1999, 69; Hildebrand 1999b, 16; Newman and Kenworthy 1989) . The EPA (2001) concludes in Our Built and Natural Environments that the urban form directly affects habitat, ecosystems, endangered species, and water quality through land consumption, habitat fragmentation, and replacement of natural cover with impervious surfaces. In addition, urban form affects travel behavior, which, in turn, affects air quality; premature loss of farmland, wetlands, and open space; soil pollution and contamination; global climate; and noise (Cervero 1998, 43-48). Moreover, growing evidence from around the world indicates that, owing to our excessive use of fossil fuels, especially in affluent countries, greenhouse gas concentrations are accumulating at an alarming rate. Prospects for the future are dire indeed, unless we act collectively to alter our energy-dependent lifestyles. Urgent changes are needed not only in our behavior but also in the design of the built form. The emergence of "sustainable development" as a popular concept (see Jabareen 2004) has revived discussion about the form of cities. Undoubtedly, it has motivated and provoked scholars and practitioners in different disciplines to seek forms for human settlements that will meet the requirements of sustainability and enable built environments to function in a more constructive way than at present. The concept of sustainable development has given a major stimulus to the question of the contribution that certain urban forms might make to lower energy consumption and lower pollution levels (U.K. Department of the Environment [DoE] 1996; Breheny 1992a, 138). This challenge has induced scholars, planners, local and international NGOs, civil societies, and governments to propose supposedly new frameworks for the redesigning and restructuring of urban places to achieve sustainability. These approaches have been addressed on different spatial levels: (1) the regional and metropolitan levels, such as the Bio-Region approach (see Forman 1997; Wheeler 2000); (2) the city level (e.g., Girardet 1999; Nijkamp and Perrels 1994; Gibbs, Longhurst, and Braithwaite 1998; Roseland 1997; Engwicht 1992; OECD 1995; Jenks, Burton, and Williams 1996) ; (3)  This article identifies sustainable urban forms and their design concepts. In addition, it addresses the question of whether certain urban forms contribute more than others to sustainability. A thematic analysis has been used to coop with the vast body of sustainable development and environmental planning literature. The analysis identifies seven design concepts related to sustainable urban forms: compactness, sustainable transport, density, mixed land uses, diversity, passive solar design, and greening. Moreover, it identifies four types of sustainable urban forms: the neotraditional development, the urban containment, the compact city, and the eco-city. Finally, this article proposes a Matrix of Sustainable Urban Form to help planners in assessing the contribution of different urban forms to sustainability.
Jabareen REF identified sustainable urban forms and their design concepts and equipments.
Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models, and Concepts
Journal of Planning Education and Research
Sociology