Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 

Streamlining urban housing development: Are there environmental sustainability 

impacts? 
Nick Preval a,⁎, Edward Randal a, Ralph Chapman b, Jonathan Moores c, Philippa Howden-Chapman a 
a New Zealand Centre for Sustainable Cities, Public Health Department, University of Otago, Wellington, 23A Mein St, 
Newtown, Wellington 6021, New Zealand b School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University 
Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand c Urban Aquatic Environments National Institute of Water and 
Atmosphere, 41 Market Place, Viaduct Harbour, Auckland, New Zealand 
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: 
New Zealand's largest city, Auckland, is currently facing a housing affordability 
crisis. Policy makers have Received 7 October 2015 
attempted to address housing supply issues by creating Special Housing Areas 
(SHAs), intended to streamline Received in revised form 7 March 2016 Accepted 11 April 2016 Available online 27 April 2016 
consent processes and fast-track development. SHAs are predicted to accommodate around 40,000 additional dwellings over 10 
or more years. This study evaluates the impact of the SHAs on measures of environmental sustainability. Using a variety of 
Keywords: Housing Sustainability 
⁎ Corresponding author. 
E-mail addresses: nicholas.preval@otago.ac.nz (N. Preval), edward.randal@otago.ac.nz (E. Randal), 
ralph.chapman@vuw.ac.nz (R. Chapman), jonathan.moores@niwa.co.nz (J. Moores), philippa.howden-chapman@otago.ac.nz 
(P. Howden-Chapman). 
datasets we estimate the impacts of SHA development on four indicators; weighted population density, carbon emissions from 
commuting, active transport share, and zinc and copper pollution from storm water runoff. The research finds that SHAs' location 
results in marginally higher population density and lower commute emis- Transport 
sions (given business-as-usual transport behaviour) overall. However, the small 
projected emissions' saving is Location 
well short of the goals for emission reduction set out by Auckland Council and New 
Zealand's central government. Emissions 
The SHAs' location is likely to mean that a smaller proportion of their commuters 
will be active compared to the Stormwater 
Auckland  average.  The  average  impact  per  dwelling  of  the  SHAs  on  stormwater  pollution  (zinc  and  copper)  is  lower  for  high 
density  and  infill  developments than for greenfield developments and overall the SHAs will con- tribute to a higher average level 
of  stormwater  pollution.  These  findings  are  placed  in  the  context  of  key  policy  documents,  and  emphasise  the  importance  of 
coordinating  land  use,  transport  and  infrastructure  planning  in  order  to  address  health,  environmental  and  climate  change 
concerns, while also addressing housing needs. 
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 
1. Introduction and background 
New Zealand is a nation of 4.6 million people. Its largest city, Auckland (population 1.5 million), is currently facing a housing 
afford-  ability  crisis,  the  origins  of  which  are  multifaceted  and  contested  (Murphy,  2015).  The  real  price  of  housing  increased 
rapidly  between  2001  and  2007,  driven  both  by  factors  common  to  many  OECD  countries such as increasing credit availability 
and  a  range  of  domestic  factors  (New  Zealand  Productivity  Commission,  2012).  Inflation  adjusted  hous-  ing  prices  dropped 
briefly  during  the  period  of  the  global  financial  crisis,  but  recovered  quickly,  particularly  in  Auckland:  in  June  2015  average 
house  prices were 30% higher than the 2007 peak (QV, 2015). Explana- tions for the recent rapid rise in Auckland housing prices 
include  demand  pressures  as a result of demographic change and international migration, plus historically low interest rates and a 
lack of enforcement of property trading provisions in New Zealand's income tax legislation 
(New Zealand Productivity Commission, 2012). Factors limiting supply include shortages of skilled workers, costs associated 
with development consent processes planning constraints on compact development. In 2013 Auckland Council identified a 
shortfall of 20,000–30,000 dwell- ings, with an ongoing need for 13,000 new dwellings annually for the next thirty years 
(Auckland Council, 2013a). Similar patterns have been observed internationally in cities such as Vancouver (Jang, 2015). Central 
and local government have attempted to address the crisis using a variety of policy tools. This paper explores the likely 
implications for environmental sustainability of a key central government policy measure intended to address supply, the creation 
of Special Housing Areas (SHAs). SHAs are geographic areas created under the 2013 Housing Accords and Special Housing 
Areas Act (HASHAA). The Act aims to en- hance housing affordability by facilitating an increase in land and housing supply in 
certain regions or districts, and to do so, allows for the creation of ‘housing accords’ between central government and territorial 
authori- ties such as Auckland Council (Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act, 2013). The Auckland Housing Accord 
was ratified in October 2013. Via mechanisms set out in the Act, the parties to an accord can des- ignate certain areas as Special 
Housing Areas. Developments that occur within SHAs and meet certain criteria can be designated ‘qualifying 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.04.003 0264-2751/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access 
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect 

Cities 
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities 
 
developments’.  Developers  can  then  avoid  the standard resource consent process, managed under the Resource Management Act 
1991  (RMA),  and  instead  apply  to  the relevant territorial authority for consent under the HASHAA. This mechanism is designed 
to  encourage  a  quicker  and  more  streamlined  consent  process  with  greater  flexibility  with  regard  to  rele-  vant  plan  rules,  thus 
addressing  one  factor  potentially  limiting  supply.  SHAs  can  be  designated  anywhere  within  Auckland's  proposed  rural  urban 
boundary  (RUB).  The  RUB  is  an  extension  of  Auckland's  previous  Metropolitan  Urban  Limits  (MUL)  of  2010,  reflecting  the 
perceived  need  to  augment  land  supply  in  order  to  address  affordability  and  supply  issues  and  is  part  of  Auckland's  Proposed 
Unitary  Plan  (PAUP).1  The  location  of  the  SHAs  created  under  the  Auckland  Housing Accord reflects land that is available for 
development  which has been identified by landowners, developers or government, and which meets a variety of criteria including 
Auckland  Plan2  principles  and  the  need  to  include  both  brownfield  and  greenfield  locations.  At  the  time  of  writing,  86  SHAs 
have  been  created  under  the  Auckland Housing Accord. The number of dwellings consented and sections created under the SHA 
legislation  is  approximately  1940  (Ministry  of  Business  Innovation  &  Employment,  2015).  This  represents  only  a  modest 
proportion  of  the  annual  13,000  additional  dwellings that are considered necessary to meet the need for additional housing in the 
city.  However,  SHAs  have  consistently  been  identified  as  an  important  part  of  the  response  to  the  housing  crisis  by the central 
government and Auckland Council and are thus important to evaluate. 
The  central  concern  of  this  paper  is  to  gauge  the  impact  of  SHA  loca-  tion  and  characteristics  on  environmental 
sustainability.3 This matters because urban development must be sustainable in the long term, and because the Auckland Housing 
Accord  requires  qualifying  develop-  ments  in  SHAs  to be consistent with the sustainable management prin- ciples set out in Part 
2  of  the  Resource  Management  Act  1991.  The  Accord  also  requires SHAs to “meet all the relevant provisions of the [Proposed] 
Auckland  Unitary  Plan”  which  identifies  sustainable  man-  agement  and  climate  change  as  issues  of  regional  significance.  We 
con-  sider  three  key  elements  of  environmental  sustainability,  the  impact of SHA location on climate change, citizen health, and 
stormwater  pollu-  tion,  reflecting  primary  challenges  to  the  sustainability  of  cities,  as  well  as  the availability of suitable private 
and publicly held data. 
Firstly,  we  evaluate  the  impact  of  SHA  location  on climate change and a dimension of citizen health which overlaps with the 
climate change mitigation goal. Anthropogenic climate change, driven primarily by CO 
2 
emissions  from  the  burning  of  fossil  fuels  represent  a  major  chal-  lenge  to  the  sustainability  of  human  civilisation 
(Chapman,  2015;  IPCC,  2014).  From a policy perspective, both New Zealand's central govern- ment and Auckland Council have 
stated that addressing climate change is of great importance (Auckland Council, 2012). New Zealand's central government has set 
several  mitigation  targets  including  a  conditional  target  of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 11% below 1990 levels by 
2030  (Groser,  2015).  The  Auckland  Plan  includes a target of re- ducing human-induced greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 
1990  levels  by  2040  and  includes  a  high  level  goal  of  “improving  energy  effi-  ciency  and  conservation  through  a compact city 
form”,  which  is  consis-  tent  with  some  international  literature  which  concludes  that  compact  cities  typically  produce  lower 
transport related CO 
2 
emissions per capita due to shorter trips and greater mode share for public and 
active 
102 N. Preval et al. / Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 
transport  (Creutzig,  Baiocchi,  Bierkandt,  Pichler,  &  Seto, 2015; Jones & Kammen, 2014; WHO, 2011). The location of SHAs in 
Auckland is partic- ularly relevant as 35% of Auckland's CO 
2 
emissions are from road trans- port (Auckland Council, 2012) and 83% of Aucklanders who went to work on Census Day 2013 
went by car. Moreover, of those who did not use a car, most are concentrated in the central city area of Auckland. Given 
Auckland's emission goals, it can be argued that urban develop- ment which will last well beyond mid-century should offer 
strong reductions in associated transport emissions. Part of these reductions would, it is hoped, arise from a modal shift from car 
use to active jour- neys, generating collateral benefits for health(Newman & Matan, 2012). Secondly, we explore the impact of 
SHA type (brownfield versus greenfield) on stormwater contamination. Stormwater contamination is partially a result of land 
cover and land use. Natural areas are perme- able and allow the absorption and filtration of stormwater before it en- ters rivers 
 and coastal waters. Urban areas are often impermeable and are sources of many pollutants (e.g. heavy metals and organic pollut- 
ants) from building materials (e.g. copper pipes or zinc and lead roofing material) and land use (e.g. roads generating emissions 
from motor vehicles). Redeveloping or intensifying land that is already urban will have less impact on stormwater contamination 
levels than converting greenfield sites, as these sites have already been degraded (Jacob & Lopez, 2009; NIWA, 2013). In 
Auckland, concerns focus on the heavy metal stormwater contaminants zinc and copper because of their po- tential effects on 
coastal ecosystems. Not only are they themselves toxic at elevated levels, but they also act as indicators of a wider suite of 
contaminants and ecological damage (Auckland Regional Council, 2010a). Considering the cultural importance of these coastal 
areas (Auckland Council, 2013b, section 5.15.1; Auckland Regional Council, 2010a) and the historical lack of consideration of 
stormwater contami- nation in the development of Auckland, as with many New Zealand cit- ies (Auckland Regional Council, 
2010a), it is pertinent to address the effects of SHA developments in Auckland on stormwater contamination levels and the 
coastal environment. Stormwater contamination was a key focus for the previous Auckland Regional Council (Auckland 
Regional Council, 2010a), and the current Auckland Council has brought new measures into the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 
(PAUP) to help reduce stormwater contamination in new developments (Auckland Council, 2013b, section 5.15.1). 
With  climate  change  and  stormwater  run-off  in  mind,  we  select metrics that allow us to evaluate the impacts of SHAs. Three 
metrics that can be linked to climate change are population-weighted density, commuting-related CO 
2 
emissions,  and  active  commuting  mode  share.  A  fourth  metric  is  the  likely impact of SHAs on zinc and 
copper-related  stormwater  contamination.  These  metrics  are  proxies  for  the  broad  range  of  potential  impacts  of  SHAs  on 
environmental sustainability. 
2. Methods 
Auckland  Council  has  made  available  the location of all SHAs, and estimates of the additional dwellings likely to be built for 
80  of  the  86  SHAs  created  to  that  point  (Auckland  Council,  2015c).  Using  ArcGIS  we  overlay  maps  of  the  SHA  locations  on 
base  maps  presenting  data  from  sources  such  as  the  2013  Census  (Statistics  New  Zealand,  2015),  and  a  model  developed  by 
NIWA  and  Auckland  Council  (Auckland  Regional  Council,  2010b)  to  assess  the  contaminant  load  of  stormwater  on  an annual 
basis.  This juxtaposition allows us to consider the overall impact of the SHAs on environmental sustainability of Auckland and to 
consider  the  impact  of  each  individual  SHA.  Sustainability  impacts  are  able  to  be  represented  visually  in  order  to  identify, 
patterns  that  merit  further  exploration.  While  the  developments that are actually built within these SHA may diverge from initial 
plans,  these  projections  constitute  a  reasonable estimation and offer insight into the likely con- sequences of current SHA policy. 
A  further  caveat  is  that  Auckland  is  a  rapidly  changing  city,  and  our use of census and other administrative data cannot account 
for changes in housing and transport patterns 
1  The  PAUP  has  been  created  as  a  result  of  the  amalgamation  of  the  district,  city  and  re-  gional  councils  that  made  up  the 
Auckland  region  in  2010.  It  is  the  document  that  sets  out  the  Auckland  Council  planning  regulations  and  replaces the previous 
Regional Policy Statement and 13 district and regional plans (Auckland Council, 2015d). 
2 The Auckland Plan was approved in 2012 and is a 30 year strategic document dealing with growth and development. The Plan 
sets  out  how  Auckland  will  accommodate  up  to  an  additional  million  occupants  while  addressing  social,  economic, 
environmental  and  cul-  tural  goals.  http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/ 
theaucklandplan/Pages/theaucklandplan.aspx 
3  SHAs  have  been  created  in  other  cities  such  as  Wellington  but this study focuses on Auckland due to the availability of high 
quality data from Auckland Council and the eco- nomic and policy significance of Auckland. 
 
since  the  data  were  collected.  These  may include changes in public transport and the road network planned in conjunction with a 
given  SHA.  Auckland  Council  and  Auckland  Transport  have stated that they intend to integrate transport planning with land use 
development  and  create an integrated transport network to support the growth of the city and help achieve the vision of becoming 
the  world's  “most  liveable  city”.  The  ambitious  goals  set  out  in the Auckland Plan (Auckland Council, 2012) and the significant 
shift  in  funding  for  public  transport  in  the  Council's  most  recent  Long-Term  Plan  (Auckland  Council,  2015a)  show  that  the 
Council  is  not  intending  to  develop  large  residen-  tial  areas without considering transport options. Nevertheless, actual transport 
system  adaptation  is  hard  to  project,  and  the  Council's  inten-  tions may be affected by resourcing and other constraints. In short, 
the projections reported in this study are subject to a range of unavoidable policy and other uncertainties. 
Three  complementary  estimations  were  developed  for  the  assessment  of the likely impact of SHAs on four important aspects 
of sustainability: Estimation 1 considers density; Estimation 2 considers commute CO 
2  emissions  and  mode  share;  and  Estimation  3  considers 
stormwater contamination. 
2.1. Estimation 1. Impact of SHAs on population density 
A  standard  approach  to  measuring  a  city's  population  density  is  to  calculate  population  per  hectare.  This  approach  is 
problematic  because  it is very sensitive to the presence of sparsely populated land within a city's boundaries. A better approach is 
to  use  population-weighted  density,  a  standard  procedure  which  better  reflects  the  density of the neighbourhood experienced by 
an  average  inhabitant  of  the city (Burton, 2003; Craig, 1985; Dorling & Atkins, 1995). In effect, sparsely populated areas ‘matter 
less’ as they are only lightly weighted, as follows: 
2.2. Equation 1. Population weighted density 
∑N 
i 
P 
i A 
i 
à
∑ P 
N 
j i 
P 
j 
where P 
i 
is the population of geographic area i and A 
i 
is  the  area  of  geographic  area  i  (in  hectares)  and geographic areas in the 
city are enumerated i = 1,2,3,..., N (Nunns, 2014). 
Using  a  population-weighted,  density-based  approach,  with  meshblocks4  as  the  geographic  area  unit,  it  is  possible to assess 
the  com-  bined  and  individual  impact  of  each  SHA on Auckland's population- weighted density. We first calculated the baseline 
population-weighted  density  for  Auckland  overall.  We  then  compared  each  individual  SHA  with  this  figure,  and  examined  the 
combined impact of all SHAs in alter- ing Auckland's density. 
This  process  involved  estimating  how  many  additional  individuals  will  occupy  the  additional  dwellings  predicted  by 
Auckland  Council  to  be  built in qualifying developments within each SHA. We divided each SHA into segments based on where 
the  SHA  overlaps  meshblock  bound-  aries  using  Auckland  Council  GIS  data.  We  then  assigned  the  additional  dwellings 
predicted  by Auckland Council to each segment, based on the proportion of the SHA's area falling into the segments created.5 To 
esti-  mate  additional  persons  housed, we used 2013 Census data on the aver- age household size for the closest Census Area Unit 
(CAU),6 and applied this to the additional dwellings in each segment of the SHA. 
4 Meshblocks are the smallest geographical unit for which Statistics New Zealand makes data publicly available. They contain a 
median of 87 individuals and have variable areas. 
5 For example, if 70% of the land area of a given SHA is in Meshblock 1 then we assume that 70% of the additional dwellings 
will be constructed in this meshblock. 
6  A  CAU  is  a  community containing between 3000 and 5000 people. We use the CAU whose centroid is closest to the centroid 
of  the  SHA,  and  apply  the  CAU's average house- hold size to the additional dwellings in each section of the SHA to estimate the 
number of additional people to be housed in the SHA. 
103 N. Preval et al. / Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 
By  mapping  results  for  each  SHA  with  suitable  data  we  visually explored the relationship between the location of each SHA 
and calculated its impact on weighted-population density. Doing so reveals patterns that can be linked to Auckland characteristics 
and key policy documents. 
2.3. Estimation 2. Impact of SHAs on commute CO 
2 
emissions and mode share 
The  second  method  utilised  data  on  commuting  from  the  Census.  In  the  2013  Census,  participants  identified  whether  they 
worked  on  the  day  of  the  Census,  their  primary  work  address,  and  how  they  travelled  to  work  on  Census  day.  For  each  CAU 
summary  data  are  available  regarding  the  number  and  type  of  commute  trips  from that CAU to each other CAU in the city. It is 
assumed  that  commuters  travelled  to  their  primary  work  location.7  Mattingly  and  Morrissey  (2014)  com-  bined these data with 
road  network  models  in  order  to  estimate  average  commute  length  and  thus  commute  costs  for  commuters within each CAU in 
order  to  relate  commuting  costs  to  measures of housing afford- ability for each CAU. Without exploring costs, we used the same 
ap- proach to estimate average CO 
2 
emissions  per  commute  for  each  CAU,  which  can  be  contrasted  with  average  emissions  per 
commute  figures  for  the  whole  of  Auckland  calculated  from  the  same  dataset.  In  order  to  calculate the distance between CAUs 
we  used  road  network  data,  and  assumed  that  the  most  direct  route  is  taken.  When  calculating  the  distance  travelled  for  a  trip 
originating  and  terminating  in  a  given  CAU  we  assumed  that  the  trip  distance  is  the  average  distance from the cen- troid of the 
CAU to its boundary. 
The approach is set out in Equation 2, with Table 1 giving the defini- tions and references used in the equation. 
Equation 2. CO 
2 
emissions per average known commute for given CAU “x” 
Emissions 
CAUx 
1⁄4 
Total Car 
CAUx 
CAUx 
à Car km 
CAUx 
à EF 
Car 
þ 
Train Total 
CAUx CAUx 
à Train km 
CAUx 
à EF 
Train 
þ 
Total Bus 
CAUx 
CAUx 
à Bus km 
CAUx 
à EF 
Bus 
Having estimated average CO 
2 
per  commute  for  each  CAU,  we  linked  CAU  data  to  SHAs  by  assuming  that  each  SHA  will 
have a transport pattern the same as the CAU nearest to it (based on centroid to centroid distances). Findings of average CO 
2 
emissions  per  commute  for  a  given  SHA  allowed  comparison  among  SHAs  and  with  an 
Auckland average (1.27 kg CO 
2 
per  trip).  This  allowed  consideration  of  the  impact  of  each  SHA  on  Auckland's  commute  emissions  and  on  the 
average total carbon emissions per commuter per year arising from different SHA locations. 
Using  the same technique and datasets, it was also possible to iden- tify likely active transport (bicycle and walking) commute 
patterns  for  each  SHA.  Here  we  utilised  summary  data  provided  by  Statistics  NZ,  rather  than  data  on  vehicle  trips  between 
CAUs,  as  active  trips  are  rare  and  are  more  likely  to  have been removed in reporting at the CAU– CAU level of detail to ensure 
confidentiality.  We  compared the propor- tion of active trips in a CAU with the average proportion of active trips in Auckland by 
calculating a ratio of proportions and linked this infor- mation to each SHA using the nearest centroid approach described above. 
2.4. Estimation 3. Impact of SHAs on stormwater contamination 
Here  we  examined  whether  variation  in  the  environmental  footprint  of  the  SHAs  can  be  linked  to  the  characteristics  of  the 
SHAs, focusing on the impact of SHAs on stormwater contamination. Via aerial 
7 For reasons of confidentiality these data may be redacted if numbers are low enough that it might be possible to identify an 
individual. 
 
photographs  provided  by  Auckland  Council  we  ascertained,  given  Auckland  Council  predictions  of  the  likely  additional 
dwellings in the SHA, whether an SHA should be categorised as: 
a) greenfield: the entire SHA is likely to be subject to greenfield development; 
b) brownfield: the entire SHA is likely to be subject to brownfield development with any existing structures being removed; 
or 
c) infill: partial infilling of the SHA is likely, with retention of existing buildings. 
Using  aerial  photographs  the  “developable  area”  of  each  SHA  was  calculated,  and  given the number of additional dwellings 
predicted  for  that  SHA  by  Auckland  Council,  it  was  possible  to  assign  likely  development  types  to  each  SHA  (low  density, 
medium  density,  high  density/apartments).  Using  previous  work  on  the  land  cover  typically  associated  with  each  of  these 
development  types  the  developable  land  was  divided  into  roofs,  roads,  pavements  and  vegetative  surfaces  (Auckland  Regional 
Council,  2010b).  Finally,  using  the  Auckland  Council's  Contaminant  Load  Model  (CLM;  Auckland  Regional  Council,  2010b), 
and  the  land-coverage  proportions  just  described  we  estimated  the  annual  stormwater  contamination  that can be attributed to an 
aver-  age  dwelling  built  within a qualifying development within that SHA.8 We focus on two key stormwater contaminants, zinc 
and cop- per, and present results for each SHA group by likely development category (greenfield, brownfield or infill). 
3. Results 
We  present  our  results  by  estimation  number.  An  interpretation  of  the  results  is  also  presented,  although  the  wider 
implications of the results for the larger policy context are left for the Discussion. 
3.1. Results for Estimation 1: impact of SHAs on weighted-population density 
Our initial evaluation suggests that if all of the predicted additional dwellings were built in the SHAs that we evaluated, this 
would increase 
104 N. Preval et al. / Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 
Table 1 Emissions equation sources and definitions. 
Element Definition Sources/references 
Car 
CAUx 
Number of commutes on day of Census by private car, company car or as car passenger originating in CAUx and ending in other 
Auckland CAUs 
Census data (Statistics New Zealand) 
Car km 
CAUx 
Average length of commute by private car, company car or as car passenger from CAUx to Auckland CAUs 
Census data 
Train 
CAUx 
Number of commutes on day of Census by train in CAUx and ending in Auckland CAUs Census data Train km 
CAUx 
Average length of commute by train from CAUx to Auckland CAUs Census data Bus 
CAUx 
Number of commutes on day of Census by bus originating in CAUx and ending in Auckland CAUs Census data Bus 
km 
CAUx 
Average length of commute by bus from CAUx to Auckland CAUs Census data Total 
CAUx 
Total number of commutes (any mode) on day of Census originating in CAUx and ending in Auckland CAUs (excludes “Other” 
and “Not elsewhere included” modal categories) 
Census data 
EF 
Car 
Emissions per km per car passenger = 0.23 kg CO 
2 
Source emissions per km: (Transport Blog, 2013b) Source occupancy: (Ministry of Transport, 2015) EF 
Train 
/1.51 where 1.51 is the most recently reported average light four wheel vehicle occupancy in Auckland 
Emissions per train passenger km =(Emissions per litre / passenger km per litre) ∗ UK Diesel to electric train emission reduction 
∗ (Ratio NZ to UK average kg CO 
2 
Source diesel emissions per litre: (Transport Blog, 2013a) Source passenger km per litre: OIA request Source UK diesel to 
electric train 30% emission reduction (Department for Transport, 2009) Source average emissions data (Brander, Sood, Wylie, 
Haughton, & Lovell, 2011) EF 
Bus 
per kWh electricity generation) =(2.67 kg CO 
2 
/ (1 km/0.0148 L)) ∗ 0.7 ∗ (0.198 kg CO 
2 
/ 0.509 kg CO 
2 
) 
Emissions per bus passenger km=emissions per litre diesel/passenger km per litre =2.67 kg CO 
2 
Source diesel emissions per litre: /(1 km/0.0365 L) 
(Transport Blog, 2013a) Source passenger km per litre: (Transport Blog, 2013a) 
Auckland's  population  weighted  density  by  approximately  4%.  This  is  a  positive  outcome,  consistent  with  Auckland  Council's 
compact city goals, and suggests that the SHA policy will not have a detrimental impact on Auckland's density. 
Turning  to  individual  SHA  calculations,  Fig.  1  shows  the  difference  between  Auckland's  population-weighted  density  at 
baseline  and  Auckland's  population-weighted  density  recalculated to include the projected additional dwellings for a given SHA. 
The  baseline  is  Auckland's  population-weighted  density  based  on  2013  Census  data.  The  resulting  figures  have  been organised 
into  tertiles,  and  colour  coded,  with  red  indicating  a  negative  impact  on  population-weighted  density,  yellow  representing  a 
neutral  or  negligible  effect,and  blue  a  positive  effect.  Here  it is clear that the SHAs closer to Auckland's central business district 
(within  the  area  magnified  in  Fig.  1)  are  more  likely  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  population-weighted  density,  while  those 
further from the centre typically make the overall city less dense. 
3.2. Results for Estimation 2: impact of SHAs on commute CO 
2 
emissions and mode share 
Here  we  explore the likely impact of SHA location on commuting patterns for new dwelling occupants, and for Auckland as a 
whole.  By  calculating  the  difference  between  average  annual  emissions  for  known  SHA  commutes  and  the  average  annual 
emissions for known Auckland-wide commutes we estimate that SHA commuters will emit approximately 23 kg of CO 
2 
less  per  year,  a  small  saving,  consistent  with  the  increase  in  density  calculated above. This finding 
suggests that SHAs will not significantly impact the transport carbon footprint of Auckland. 
Exploring this data further, we then compare estimated average CO 
2 emissions per commute trip from an SHA with Auckland's 
average CO 
2  emissions  per  commute  trip,  as  shown  in  Fig.  2.  Since 
Auckland  is  a  multi-nodal  city  and  employment  is  widely  distributed,  with  dense  clusters  to  the  north,  west  and  south  of  the 
central city (Nunns, 2014), the results reflect a complex modelled travel pattern, and not simply the distance from the CBD. 
Fig.  2  suggests  that,  for  the  most  part,  commutes  from  SHA  locations  can  be  predicted  to  be  fairly  similar  to  the  Auckland 
average. The clear area of concern is the cluster of red SHAs to the south of the central 
8 These calculations do not factor in the impact of construction on stormwater, but rath- er the ongoing post-construction 
impact. 
 
city  in  the  Manukau  and  Papakura  areas  where  commute  emissions  are  more  than  25%  greater  than  the  Auckland  average. 
Occupants  of  the CAUs linked to these SHAs are making average commutes that are longer than the Auckland average and using 
a  lower  proportion  of  public transport. This reflects the employment location patterns of typical residents and the availability and 
suitability of public trans- port in such areas. 
105 N. Preval et al. / Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 
Fig.  1.  Impact  of  SHAs  on  population-weighted  density.  Grey  areas  indicate  CAUs  of  the  Auckland  region.  Red  areas indicate 
SHAs  which  reduce  Auckland's  population  weighted  density.  Blue  areas  indicate  SHAs  which  increase  Auckland's  population 
weighted  density.  Light  yellow  areas  have  a  neutral  or  negligible  impact  on  population  weighted  density.  The  point  indicating 
Queen Street is a proxy for the centre of Auckland's central business district. 
Returning to absolute figures, in Fig. 3 we present the difference be- tween the estimated average annual CO 
2 
emissions for an SHA commuter and the average annual CO 
2 
emissions  of  a  typical  Auckland  commuter.  We  assume  that  a  full-time  commuter  commutes  to and 
from  work  456  times  per  year,  based  on standard assumptions. The vertical axis orders SHAs by dwelling density (least dense at 
the top to densest at the bot- tom). Carbon emissions in a polycentric city such as Auckland depend 
 
on  how  many  residents  commute  to  particular  local  employment  nodes,  as  much  as  where  they live relative to the CBD. Hence 
some SHAs in Fig. 3 have an emissions saving impact (commuters produce less CO 
2  annually  than  a  typical  Auckland  commuter)  but for some 
SHAs,  including  some  approximately  22  to  33  km  from  the  centre  of  Auckland,  there  is  an  emissions  increasing  impact.  This 
subgroup includes the large southern SHAs near Manukau and Papakura. 
emissions Fig. 2. CO 
2 
ratio  for  SHA  commutes  vs.  Auckland  average.  Grey  areas  indicate  CAUs  of  the  Auckland  region.  Blue  areas 
indicate  SHAs  where  emissions  from  the  average  commute  are  substantially  lower  than  emissions  from  the  average  citywide 
commute.  Red  areas  indicate  SHAs  where  emissions from the average commute are substantially higher than emissions from the 
average  citywide  commute.  Yellow  areas  indicate  SHAs  where  emissions  from  the  average  commute  are  similar  to  those  from 
the average citywide commute. 
106 N. Preval et al. / Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 
Turning  to  active  transport,  we  compare  the  estimated  propor-  tion  of  active  trips  from  an  SHA  to  the  overall  average 
Auckland  proportion of active trips. We estimate active commute proportions from the CAU linked to the SHA in question, using 
census  summary  data  and  compare  this  with  the  Auckland  average  active  commute  proportion  from  the  same  dataset.  We  find 
that, considering known commute types only, the Auckland-wide proportion of active commuters 
 
is  6.6%,  higher than the weighted SHA average of 4.3% This is consis- tent with the international literature, which typically finds 
that  2  km  is  the  maximum  distance  that  most  walkers  are  willing  to  commute  and  that 6 km is the maximum distance that most 
cyclists  are  willing  to  commute  (Burke  &  Brown,  2007;  Larsen,  El-Geneidy,  &  Yasmin,  2010;  Milakis,  Cervero,  van  Wee,  & 
Maat, 2015; Ministry of Transport, 2013). While Auckland is multi-nodal, the greatest 
emissions Fig. 3. Difference between average annual CO 
2 
(kg) per commuter predicted for SHAs (listed on the left) and average annual 
emissions for a typical Auckland commuter. Negative values (left of centre) represent savings. SHAs are presented in order from 
least dense (top) to most dense (bottom). 
107 N. Preval et al. / Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 
concentration  of  active  commuters  is found in the central city (where population is densest and there is the greatest concentration 
of employment). 
Fig.  4  enables  us  to visually explore this finding, and shows that the large majority of SHAs outside of a 2 km radius from the 
city centre, will likely be occupied by commuters with a lower likelihood of active travel than the Auckland average. 
 
3.3. Results for Estimation 3: evaluating the impact of SHA location on stormwater contamination 
Figs.  5  and  6  show  the  annual  impact  of  stormwater  contamination  per  dwelling  by  land-use  change  type  (greenfield, 
brownfield  and  infill).  The  results  are  presented  with  dwelling  density  decreasing  from  top  to  bottom.  The black vertical line is 
the average change in contaminant 
108 N. Preval et al. / Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 
Fig.  4.  SHA  active  travel  proportion  versus  Auckland  average  active  travel  proportion:  Grey  areas  indicate  CAUs  of  the 
Auckland  region.  Blue  areas  indicate  SHAs  where  active  travel  mode  share  is  substantially  higher  than  the  Auckland  average. 
Red  areas  indicate  SHAs  where  active travel mode share is substantially lower than the Auckland average. Yellow areas indicate 
SHAs where active travel mode share is similar to the Auckland average. 
load per dwelling for all SHAs. This helps distinguish SHAs that generate more, or less, than an average share of contaminants. 
The  results  indicate  that  an  increase  in  copper  (Fig.  5)  and  zinc  (Fig.  6)  load  is  associated  with development in most SHAs. 
On  a  per  dwelling  basis,  the  load  increases  tend  to  be  greater  as  dwelling  density  declines.  This  is  because  lower  density 
developments result in a greater impervious area per dwelling (e.g. a single suburban 
 
home might have the same roof area as an apartment block with dwellings on three levels). Also, loads of these metals (especially 
zinc)  tend  to  decline  in  SHAs  involving  brownfield  redevelopment  of  impervious  surfaces.  This  is  partly  because  old  high 
contaminant- yielding roofing materials are expected to be replaced by modern lower contaminant-yielding materials. In addition, 
because  the  pro-  visions  of  the  Proposed  Auckland  Unitary  Plan  (PAUP)  are  in  effect  in  the  SHAs,  treatment  to  remove 
contaminants from stormwater 
109 N. Preval et al. / Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 
Fig. 5. Annual impact of copper (Cu) stormwater contamination per dwelling by land-use change type (greenfield, brownfield 
redevelopment and infill) for each SHA. Results presented with SHAs ordered by dwelling density, decreasing from top to 
bottom within each category. Black vertical line is the average change in contaminant load per dwelling for all SHAs. 
will be required to a greater extent than was the case under the pre- vious land use. 
In  summary,  from  the  point  of  view  of  stormwater  contamination,  SHAs  are  better  where  they  involve  brownfield 
redevelopment  of  existing  impervious  surfaces,  rather  than  the  development  of  open  or  green  space;  and/or  when  they  involve 
high  dwelling  densities.  The  worst  SHAs,  from  the  point  of  view  of  stormwater  contamination, are those involving low-density 
greenfield developments. 
 
4. Discussion 
The  results  presented  in  the  previous  section  suggest  that  develop-  ment  in  SHAs  is  likely  overall  to  have  a  very  minor 
positive impact on the sustainability of Auckland in terms of climate change, via increased density and lower commuting CO 
2 
emissions,  although  active  transport  use  will  be  lower  than  the  Auckland  average.  These 
impacts  will  be  greater  if  transport  provision  linked  to  SHAs  makes  a  significant  change  from the ‘business as usual’ pattern of 
transport emissions seen in 
110 N. Preval et al. / Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 
Fig. 6. Annual impact of zinc (Zn) stormwater contamination per dwelling by land-use change type (greenfield, brownfield 
redevelopment and infill) for each SHA. Results presented with SHAs ordered by dwelling density, decreasing from top to 
bottom within each category. Black vertical line is the average change in contaminant load per dwelling for all SHAs. 
surrounding  areas.  Our  use  of  population  weighted  density  is  one  of  a  variety  of  density  measures  (Boyko  &  Cooper,  2011) 
selected  after consideration of the literature and current practice. We note that there is debate about the merits of density as a goal 
for  urban develop- ment, with some contending that compact urban form must be well designed in order to achieve outcomes that 
are  more  sustainable  than  urban  sprawl  given  the  potential for trade-offs across multiple dimen- sions of sustainability (Holman, 
Mace, Paccoud, & Sundaresan, 2015). Leaving this debate to one side, our focus here is on environmental 
 
sustainability, where increased density may be less problematically regarded as a positive proxy for climate change mitigation via 
transport emissions, as noted above. 
From  an  environmental  sustainability  perspective  we  argue  that  developments  that  are  likely  to result in commute emissions 
which  are  similar  to  the  current  Auckland  average  are  pointing  in  the  right  direction,  but  not  sufficiently  ambitious,  given  the 
emissions  reduction  targets  of  Auckland  Council  and  central  government,  or  indeed  the even more ambitious goals called for in 
Paris  at COP21. On the other hand, active transport, which entails important health co-benefits, is likely to diminish judging from 
SHA  location,  and  –  while  a  small  scale  impact  –  the  direction  of  change  here  is  undesirable. In both these regards, and also in 
relation  to  stormwater,  Auckland  can  and  should  do  better.  The  results  suggest  that  sustainability  has  in  practice  been  largely 
overlooked  in  the  implementation  of  the  SHA  legislation  (HASHAA,  2013)  and  more  creativity  is  needed  on  the  part  of 
Auckland  Council  and  central  government  to  ensure  that  sustainable  transport  options,  increased  dwelling  density  and  more 
environmentally sustain- able practices are secured for these SHAs – to the extent now possible – and future SHA developments. 
From  a  policy  perspective,  this  article  provides  evidence of several large SHAs to the south of Auckland that are projected to 
generate high levels of commute related CO 
2 
emissions  relative  to  the  Auckland  average.  This reflects the current location of work and the 
availability  of public transport for occupants of these areas. The Auckland Housing Accord (Auckland Council, 2013a) states that 
qualifying SHA develop- ments must demonstrate that “sufficient and appropriate infrastructure is and can be provided to support 
the  development”  (Auckland  Council,  2013a).  The  PAUP  also  encourages  sustainability  and  connectedness  in  all  medium  to 
large  developments  by requiring developers to provide for walking, cycling and public transport within the neighbourhood and to 
connect  to  other  communities  (e.g.  no  dead  ends  or  cul-de-sacs  where possible). These provisions are vital if outlying SHAs are 
to out- perform these baseline projections. 
Of  particular  policy  interest,  these  SHAs  are  close  to  or  within  the  space  for  development  opened  up  by  the  expansion  of 
Auckland's  previ-  ous  Metropolitan  Urban  Limits  to  the  new  Rural  Urban  Boundary  (RUB)  set  out  in  the  Proposed  Auckland 
Unitary  Plan  (PAUP),  the  rules  of  which  apply  to  SHAs  under  the  HASHAA  legislation.  It  is  intended  that  up  to  40%  of  new 
dwellings  built  by  2040  will  be  outside  the  MUL  but  within  the  RUB.  These  findings  demonstrate  the  challenge  that  such 
developments  will  pose  to  environmental  sustainability  and  highlight  the  importance  of  the  process  by  which  land  currently 
zoned  rural  is  rezoned.  To  create  Future  Urban  and  Urban  areas  the  PAUP  requires  de-  velopers  to  produce  Structure  Plans, 
which  establish  a  pattern  of  land  use  in  the  area  and  set  out  the  transport  and  services  networks  required in, and to be provided 
for,  that  area.  It  is  clear  that  areas  further  out  from  the  city  centre  need  to  have  robust,  well  thought  out  and  thorough  de- 
velopment  plans  that  account  for  the  requirements  of  future  communi-  ties,  with  well-designed  transport  and  infrastructure 
networks  and  sustainable  links  to  employment areas being of key importance. Careful consideration also needs to be given to the 
impacts  on  coastal water quality of greenfield developments. If these areas are required for housing provision, adequate measures 
need to be employed to reduce stormwater contamination and the resulting damage to sediment-dwelling marine communities. 
These  and  other  provisions  in  the Auckland Plan and the PAUP suggest that Auckland Council is, despite central government 
pressure  for  peripheral  urban  development  (Murphy,  2015),  taking  positive  initiatives  to  reshape  the  development  trajectory  in 
Auckland.  The  Council  appears  to  want  to  collaborate  with  developers  to  ensure  that  the  urban  system  as  a  whole is taken into 
account  when  designing  and  providing  new  residential  developments.  It  is  tempting  to  avoid  new  development  being 
predominantly  greenfield.  Indeed,  the  Council  has  recently  rejected  greenfield  SHAs  in  north-western Auckland on the grounds 
that transport and other infrastructure provisions were not 
111 N. Preval et al. / Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 
sufficiently  cost-effective,  and  would  have  placed  a  significant  burden  on  ratepayers,  and  have  chosen  to  focus  on  SHAs  in 
“brownfield  sites which already have good levels of infrastructure service” (Auckland Council, 2015b). However, developers and 
central  government  do  not  want  the  delays  and  cost  that  come  with  this  more  thorough  ap-  proach,  and  are putting pressure on 
Auckland  Council  to  loosen  their  requirements,  with  Housing  Minister  Nick  Smith  noting  that  central  government  could 
potentially create SHAs without Auckland Council approval (Small & Moir, 2015). 
This  conflict  highlights  the  tensions  underlying  the  response  to  the  housing  crisis  and  the SHA policy, and demonstrates the 
potential  for  the  central government's focus on increasing supply to override other concerns. This paper has identified SHAs that, 
under  a  business-  as-usual  approach,  will  make  Auckland  less  environmentally  sustain-  able,  even  though  the  SHA  policy  as  a 
whole  could  result  in  a  small  im-  provement  in  density  and  average  commute  related  emissions.  Yet  if the vision set out by the 
Council  in  the  PAUP  is  achieved,  the  impacts  of  housing  location choice may be partially mitigated, for example with Structure 
Plans.  The concern is that these rules and provisions may be ignored or over-ridden as a result of the central government focus on 
addressing  supply,  resulting  in  low-density  development  with  adverse  environmental  impacts which will make it hard for Auck- 
land to achieve its goal of being “the world's most liveable city: a quality, compact city” (Auckland Council, 2012). 
Turning  to  the  strengths  and  limitations  of  this  study,  the  strengths  include  the  use  of  publicly  available  datasets  and  a 
transparent,  replica-  ble  methodology.  The  study  also  demonstrates  the  potential  value  of  more  comprehensively evaluating the 
various implications of location when considering locations for future development. 
The  primary  limitation  of  this  study  stems  from  the  fact  that  our  analyses  are  based  on  data provided with a lag, such as the 
2013  Census,  and  do  not  model  future  changes  in  the  transport  system.  As  noted,  our  analyses  can  be  seen  as  reflecting  a 
‘business-as-usual’  scenario,  assum-  ing  no significant change to transport provisions and hence modal split or commute patterns 
in  the  SHA  areas.  If,  as  is  likely,  transport  provision  changes,  then  carbon  emissions  and  active  mode share could both diverge 
significantly  over  time  from  the  figures  presented  here.  However,  the  nature  of  such  change  cannot  easily  be  determined. 
Similarly, census data does not include non-commute trip data, so we cannot incorporate non-commute trips into our calculations. 
Commuting  to  work  or  educa-  tion,  taken  together,  is  the  largest  category  of  travel  in  New  Zealand,  and  is  important  to  the 
accurate  estimation  of  the  overall  impacts  of  trav-  el.  Finally,  our  density-based  calculations  required  assumptions  about  the 
likely number of occupants of projected dwellings based on the average occupancy in the surrounding area. If SHA developments 
diverged  from  the  pattern of dwellings in the surrounding area, then density and envi- ronmental implications could diverge from 
those projected. 
An  important  question  for  future  research  suggested  by  this  paper  and  the  conflict  described  above  is  the  pattern  of 
infrastructure  costs  associated  with  the  different  SHAs  and  how  these  costs  are  likely  to  vary  with  location  and  density. 
Regrettably,  suitable  data  on  infrastruc-  ture  were  not  available  at  the  time  of  writing.  The  present  study  also  suggests  more 
sophisticated models might better account for future transport plans when evaluating the likely commute emissions resulting from 
commutes  from  different  locations.  Other  areas  of productive future research could include evaluation of the likely impact of the 
larger  SHAs  on  local  air  pollution  using  suitable  transport  and  air-quality  models.  Moreover,  the  estimates  of impacts on water 
contamination  could  useful-  ly  be  extended  to  a  more  in-depth  evaluation  of  likely  stormwater  runoff  patterns  from  specific 
SHAs,  taking  into  account  future  stormwater  treat-  ment  requirements  set  out  in the PAUP. Such an analysis could benefit from 
taking  a  water  catchment  perspective  to  identify  which  coastal  areas  are  likely to be most negatively impacted by the SHAs and 
impacts on the local ecology. Investigating who uses these areas for recreation and food gathering may shed light on equity issues 
and which groups in the wider Auckland community bear the negative impacts of these 
 
developments.  Lastly,  moving  beyond  environmental  impact,  an  evalu-  ation  of  the  success  of  the  SHAs  in  terms  of  housing 
affordability  is  warranted:  while  Council  documents  say  “[i]n  all  cases,  the  council  will  require  that  a  portion  of  all  homes  are 
affordable to first-home buyers” (Auckland Council, 2014, p 3), it is unclear how this will be ensured and monitored. 
5. Conclusion 
This  study  has  raised  questions  about  the  choice  of  areas  designated  as  Special  Housing  Areas  in  Auckland.  Of  course, 
decisions  about  the  suitability  of  such  areas  must  take  into  account  a  variety  of  consider-  ations, and the availability of suitable 
land  in  Auckland  is  limited.  On  the  one  hand,  as  the  Auckland  Plan  asserts,  high  quality  intensification  has  the  potential  to 
improve  critical  dimensions  of  sustainability  for  Auckland,  without  requiring  new  land  to  be  developed.  On  the other hand, the 
results  found  in  this  paper's  analysis  suggest  that  the  recent  choice  of  a  number  of  peripheral SHA areas for affordable housing 
de-  velopment  may  have  some  adverse  consequences  for  environmental  sustainability,  and  show  a  lack  of  ambition in terms of 
reducing CO 
2  emissions.  It  is  hoped  that  an  analysis  similar  to  that 
carried  out  in  this  study  might  become  a  standard  procedure  before  critical  land  use  deci- sions are taken in regard to the future 
shape of Auckland. 
Acknowledgements 
Auckland Council — for GIS data and aerial photographs. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Contract 
UOOX1203) for funding this research via the Resilient Urban Futures programme. 
Statistics New Zealand for Census 2013 data. 
References 
Auckland Council (2012). Auckland Plan retrieved from Auckland. Auckland Council (2013a). Auckland Housing Accord. 
(Retrieved from). Auckland Council (2013b). The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. (Retrieved from Auckland) 
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/ unitaryplan/Pages/home.aspx Auckland Council 
(2014). Special housing areas — Frequently asked questions. (Retrieved from) 
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/housingsupply/ Documents/specialhousingareasfaqs.pdf Auckland 
Council (2015a). The 10-year budget: Long-term plan 2015–2025. (Retrieved from Auckland) 
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/PLANSPOLICIESPROJECTS/ 
PLANSSTRATEGIES/LONGTERMPLAN2015/Pages/home.aspx Auckland Council (2015b). Auckland Council signals 
preference for housing developments within urban areas. (Retrieved from) http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ 
newseventsculture/OurAuckland/mediareleases/Pages/ aucklandcouncilsignalspreference.aspx Auckland Council (2015c). HPO 
special housing areas. (Retrieved from) http:// 
aucklandopendata.aucklandcouncil.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ b728dc7829914f6994878513633800e2_0 Auckland Council 
(2015d). Unitary Plan: The process so far. Auckland Unitary Plan. (Retrieved from) 
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/ 
plansstrategies/unitaryplan/Pages/abouttheproposedunitaryplan.aspx Auckland Regional Council (2010a). Chapter 4.4 – State of 
the environement and biodiver- sity – Marine. (Retrieved from Auckland) http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ 
planspoliciesprojects/reports/technicalpublications/Pages/ stateaucklandregionreport2010.aspx Auckland Regional Council 
(2010b). Development of the contaminant load model. Auckland Regional Council technical report 2010/004 Retrieved from 
http://www. aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/planspolicies 
publications/technicalpublications/tr2010004contaminantloadmodeldevelopment.pdf Boyko, C. T., & Cooper, R. (2011). 
Clarifying and re-conceptualising density. Progress in 
Planning, 76(1), 1–61. Brander, M., Sood, A., Wylie, C., Haughton, A., & Lovell, J. (2011). Technical paper: 
Electricity-specific emissions factors for grid electricity. (Retrieved from) http:// 
ecometrica.com/assets/Electricity-specific-emission-factors-for-grid-electricity.pdf Burke, M., & Brown, A. (2007). Distances 
people walk for transport. Road and Transport Research, 16(3) Retrieved from http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/ 
handle/10072/17867/49100_1.pdf?sequence=1 
112 N. Preval et al. / Cities 55 (2016) 101–112 
Burton, E. (2003). Housing for an urban renaissance: Implications for social equity. 
Housing Studies, 18(4), 537–562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673030304249. Chapman, R. (2015). Time of useful 
consciousness: Acting urgently on climate change. 
Wellington: Bridget Williams Books. Craig, J. (1985). Better measures of population density. Population Trends(39), 16–21. 
Creutzig, F., Baiocchi, G., Bierkandt, R., Pichler, P. -P., & Seto, K. C. (2015). Global typology of urban energy use and 
potentials for an urbanization mitigation wedge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(20), 6283–6288. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1315545112. Department for Transport (2009). Britain's transport infrastructure: Rail 
electification. 
(Retrieved from London). Dorling, D., & Atkins, D. (1995). Population density, change and concentration in Great 
Britain 1971, 1981 and 1991: Citeseer. Groser, T. (2015). Climate change target announced [Press release]. (Retrieved from) 
http:// 
www.beehive.govt.nz/release/climate-change-target-announced Holman, N., Mace, A., Paccoud, A., & Sundaresan, J. (2015). 
Coordinating density; working 
through conviction, suspicion and pragmatism. Progress in Planning, 101, 1–38. Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas 
Act (2013). (Retrieved from) http://www. 
legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0072/latest/whole.html#DLM5459817 IPCC (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis 
report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate 
change. (Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland) http://epic.awi.de/37530/1/IPCC_ AR5_SYR_Final.pdf Jacob, J. S., & Lopez, R. 
(2009). Is denser greener? An evaluation of higher density devel- opment as an urban stormwater-quality Best Management 
Practice1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45(3), 687–701. Jang, B. (2015). Vancouver's 
detached house prices keep soaring as supply dwindles. The globe and mail (Retrieved from) 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on- business/vancouvers-detached-house-prices-keep-soaring-as-supply-dwindles/ 
article25852584/ Jones, C., & Kammen, D. M. (2014). Spatial distribution of U.S. household carbon footprints reveals 
suburbanization undermines greenhouse gas benefits of urban population density. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(2), 
895–902. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1021/es4034364. Larsen, J., El-Geneidy, A., & Yasmin, F. (2010). Beyond the quarter mile: 
Re-examining travel distances by active transportation. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 19(1 Supp), 70–88 (Retrieved from) 
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct= true&db=a9h&AN=96158569&site=ehost-live Mattingly, K., & Morrissey, J. 
(2014). Housing and transport expenditure: Socio-spatial in- 
dicators of affordability in Auckland. Cities, 38, 69–83. Milakis, D., Cervero, R., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2015). Do people 
consider an acceptable travel time? Evidence from Berkeley, CA. Journal of Transport Geography, 44, 76–86. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.03.008. Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (2015). Auckland housing 
accord third report for accord year 2. Wellington: New Zealand Government (Retrieved from) 
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/housing-property/housing-accords/auckland- housing-accord Ministry of Transport (2013, 
May 2013). New Zealand household travel survey 2009–2013: Cycling. (Retrieved from) 
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Import/Documents/ Cycling-2013.pdf Ministry of Transport (2015). Transport volume: 
Person travel. (Retrieved from) http:// 
www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/tmif/transport-volume/tv010/ Murphy, L. (2015). The politics of land supply and affordable 
housing: Auckland's housing accord and special housing areas. Urban Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0042098015594574. 
New Zealand Productivity Commission (2012). Housing affordability inquiry. (Retrieved from Wellington) 
http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/ files/Final%20Housing%20Affordability%20Report_0_0.pdf Newman, P., & 
Matan, A. (2012). Human mobility and human health. Current Opinion in 
Environmental Sustainability, 4(4), 420–426. NIWA (2013). Stormwater — An introduction. (Retrieved from) 
https://www.niwa.co.nz/ freshwater-and-estuaries/stormwater-management/stormwater-an-introduction Nunns, P. (2014). 
Population-weighted density in New Zealand and Australian cities: A new 
comparative dataset. (Retrieved from Auckland). QV (2015). Auckland property values rise at fastest annual rate in 11 years. 
(Retrieved 
 from) https://www.qv.co.nz/resources/news/article?blogId=195 Small, V., & Moir, J. (2015). Government may over-ride 
Auckland Council on housing areas. (Retrieved from) http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/68282116/government- 
may-override-auckland-council-on-housing-areas Statistics New Zealand (2015). 2013 census. (Retrieved from) 
http://stats.govt.nz/Census/ 
2013-Census Transport Blog (2013a). Public transport emissions in NZ. (Retrieved from) http:// 
transportblog.co.nz/2013/07/19/public-transport-emissions-in-nz/ Transport Blog (2013b). What's the deal with transport 
emissions? (Retrieved from) http:// 
transportblog.co.nz/2013/02/28/whats-the-deal-with-transport-emissions/ WHO (2011). Health in the green economy: Health 
co-benefits of climate change mitigation — Transport sector. (Retrieved from Geneva) http://www.who.int/ 
hia/green_economy/en/index.html