Talking about density: An empirical investigation of framing

Abstract

Scholars of cities have presented evidence that increasing the density of urban areas in western countries is key to accomplishing greater sustainability in the built environment. Technical knowledge of sprawl's negative impacts may well convince local planners of the benefits of denser development, but planners likely face challenges in communicating the benefits of densification to their constituents. When planners cite certain benefits over others, they effectively frame densification in ways that may or may not resonate with the values of their constituents. This paper evaluates the efficacy of seven commonly elicited frames for densification. We evaluate factors impacting constituent reception of densification as presented through each frame including: (1) constituent familiarity with each frame, (2) a variety of demographic and political factors, and (3) neighborhood land use and density in the area where increased density is proposed. We find that planners prompt each of the frames with different associated rates of success or failure across communities of different demographics, and that residential neighborhoods of eight (8) or fewer dwelling units per acre (3.24 or fewer units per hectare) are especially less likely to support densification regardless of the elicited frame. We also find that constituent familiarity with a given frame is always associated with increased support for densification, but occasionally with widespread doubt in planners’ arguments as well.