IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i17p7301-d1463623.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

UN-Sustainable Urbanism: The Challenge of “Lock-In”

Author

Listed:
  • Michael W. Mehaffy

    (School of Architecture, The University of Notre Dame, 114 Walsh Family Hall of Architecture, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA)

Abstract

The term “sustainable urbanism” has been criticized over its inconsistent and imprecise definition, leading to challenges in implementing actionable reforms and achieving urban sustainability goals. A clearer approach may be to identify its opposite: specifically, forms of urbanism that cause an unacceptable buildup of toxic or climate-altering emissions, deplete resources beyond sustainable levels, progressively destroy critical ecologies, and cause other identifiable sources of potentially catastrophic harm to human and urban welfare. Here, we present a model of such an “unsustainable urbanism”, and we further observe that it is in fact the dominant model of urban structure to this day. Its features include an over-reliance on low-occupancy vehicular transport, at the expense of other modes including walking; inefficient envelope, size, orientation and adaptability of buildings; ecologically destructive infrastructure systems for handling water, energy and other resources; and—under-appreciated but fundamentally important, as we will explore—the decline of a well-connected, walkable, functionally and aesthetically appealing public realm. This model remains dominant in spite of the many goals, agendas and declarations on sustainable urbanism at the highest policy level. We observe that the lack of progress is in large part the result of system “lock-in”—economic and professional incentives and disincentives, standards, laws, codes, and other forms of feedback that reinforce “business as usual” and create barriers to reform. Therefore, the agenda ahead must address the specific levers of change to overcome this systemic lock-in, drawing insights from economics, technology and the social sciences to do so. We present the outlines of this agenda and make conclusions for the necessary steps ahead.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael W. Mehaffy, 2024. "UN-Sustainable Urbanism: The Challenge of “Lock-In”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-16, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7301-:d:1463623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7301/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7301/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    2. Maria P. Roche, 2020. "Taking Innovation to the Streets: Microgeography, Physical Structure, and Innovation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(5), pages 912-928, December.
    3. David Brain, 2019. "Reconstituting the Urban Commons: Public Space, Social Capital and the Project of Urbanism," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(2), pages 169-182.
    4. Fiala, Nathan, 2008. "Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 519-525, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Minniti & William Bygrave, 2001. "A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Learning," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 25(3), pages 5-16, April.
    2. Beomjin Choi & T. S. Raghu & Ajay Vinzé & Kevin J. Dooley, 2019. "Effectiveness of standards consortia: Social network perspectives," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 405-416, April.
    3. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    4. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    5. Pascal Petit, 2010. "Innovation and Services: On Biases and Beyond," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Faridah Djellal (ed.), The Handbook of Innovation and Services, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Yunyao Li & Yanji Ma, 2022. "Research on Industrial Innovation Efficiency and the Influencing Factors of the Old Industrial Base Based on the Lock-In Effect, a Case Study of Jilin Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-23, October.
    7. Yunhui Wang & Yihua Chen & Zhiying Li, 2024. "Escaping poverty: changing characteristics of China’s rural poverty reduction policy and future trends," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Wenjun Guo & Wei Zhao & Min Min, 2022. "Operation Scale, Transfer Experience, and Farmers’ Willingness toward Farmland Transfer-In: A Case Study of Rice–Crayfish Cultivating Regions in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, March.
    9. McKelvey, Bill & Wycisk, Christine & Hülsmann, Michael, 2009. "Designing an electronic auction market for complex 'smart parts' logistics: Options based on LeBaron's computational stock market," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 476-494, August.
    10. Steven N. Durlauf, 1996. "Statistical Mechanics Approaches to Socioeconomic Behavior," NBER Technical Working Papers 0203, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Blasi, E. & Passeri, N. & Franco, S. & Galli, A., 2016. "An ecological footprint approach to environmental–economic evaluation of farm results," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 76-82.
    12. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2013. "Open Access, Social Norms & Publication Choice," ICER Working Papers 03-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    13. Elert, Niklas & Henrekson, Magnus, 2017. "Entrepreneurship and Institutions: A Bidirectional Relationship," Working Paper Series 1153, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 05 May 2017.
    14. Kevin Lansing, 2009. "Time Varying U.S. Inflation Dynamics and the New Keynesian Phillips Curve," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 12(2), pages 304-326, April.
    15. Dietrich, Antje-Mareike, 2016. "Governmental platform intermediation to promote alternative fuel vehicles," Economics Department Working Paper Series 16, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Economics Department.
    16. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    17. Andre Nassif & Carmem Aparecida Feijo & Eliane Araújo, 2016. "Structural change, catching up and falling behind in the BRICS: A comparative analysis based on trade pattern and Thirlwall’s Law," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 69(279), pages 373-421.
    18. Giovanna Devetag, 2000. "Transfer, Focality and Coordination: Some Experimental Results," LEM Papers Series 2000/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    19. Sohail Abbas & Shazia Kousar & Amber Pervaiz, 2021. "Effects of energy consumption and ecological footprint on CO2 emissions: an empirical evidence from Pakistan," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(9), pages 13364-13381, September.
    20. Teixidó Figueras, Jordi & Duro Moreno, Juan Antonio, 2012. "Ecological Footprint Inequality: A methodological review and some results," Working Papers 2072/203168, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7301-:d:1463623. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.