Lakhasly

This paper investigates the intricate relationships between multifaceted urban forms and carbon emissions, contributing to the ongoing debate on the sustainability impact of urban centralism versus decentralism in land-use strategies.To achieve this, we develop a multidimensional core-periphery classification scheme and employ a combination of non-spatial and spatial models to analyze the non-stationary impacts of urban forms on carbon emissions.These comprehensive measures of urban forms respond to the "centralized" and "decentralized" views of spatial development, enriching the manifestation and quantification of these two theoretical arguments.In peripheral areas, adopting centralized strategies that prioritize economies of scale in land development and maintaining a moderate level of compactness can promote low-carbon sustainability.In core regions, centralized strategies of compactness increase carbon emissions, although this can be offset by enhanced connectivity, particularly within integrated metropolitan administration.Second, to reconcile the debates of these two theoretical views for better sustainable development, we focus on how local contexts matter for potentially shaping diverse impacts of different urban form strategies.The results further reveal that the influence of urban forms on carbon emissions varies spatially, contingent on economic, planning, and administrative factors across core and peripheral regions.Third, we further introduce a multifaceted core-periphery classification scheme to characterize the intricate impacts of urban forms based on local economic, planning, and administrative attributes.However, there are exceptions that specific peripheral eco-regions benefit from complexity while increased connectivity may undermine sustainability in less developed peripheries.

This paper investigates the intricate relationships between multifaceted urban forms and carbon emissions, contributing to the ongoing
debate on the sustainability impact of urban centralism versus decentralism in land-use strategies. To achieve this, we develop a multidimensional core-periphery classification scheme and employ a combination of non-spatial and spatial models to analyze the non-stationary
impacts of urban forms on carbon emissions. We have found that
large-scale, contiguous land development can effectively reduce carbon
emissions. However, these benefits may be compromised by excessive
compactness and irregular spatial structures. The results further reveal
that the influence of urban forms on carbon emissions varies spatially,
contingent on economic, planning, and administrative factors across
core and peripheral regions. In core regions, centralized strategies of
compactness increase carbon emissions, although this can be offset by
enhanced connectivity, particularly within integrated metropolitan
administration. In peripheral areas, adopting centralized strategies that
prioritize economies of scale in land development and maintaining a
moderate level of compactness can promote low-carbon sustainability.
However, there are exceptions that specific peripheral eco-regions
benefit from complexity while increased connectivity may undermine
sustainability in less developed peripheries.
Our paper contributes to the literature in three ways. First, we
examine different types of urban forms and their various impacts on
carbon reductions across different regional contexts. These comprehensive measures of urban forms respond to the “centralized” and
“decentralized” views of spatial development, enriching the manifestation and quantification of these two theoretical arguments. Second, to
reconcile the debates of these two theoretical views for better sustainable development, we focus on how local contexts matter for potentially
shaping diverse impacts of different urban form strategies. Our global
models demonstrate different focuses (indicators) of land use could
affect developmental outcomes. Our spatial models suggest even the
same land use strategy may generate different sustainable outcomes
across various local contexts. These underscore the importance of
comprehensive understanding of urban form features as well as the
context-based policy-making in land use planning (e.g., Jin and Xu,
2024). Third, we further introduce a multifaceted core-periphery classification scheme to characterize the intricate impacts of urban forms
based on local economic, planning, and administrative attributes. This
goes beyond the simple reveal of spatial heterogeneity. It provides
perspectives and explanations to understand different “contextual effects” through discussing important attributes of localities and possible
regional mechanisms that cause the spatial difference of urban form
outcomes (e.g., Xu et al., 2023). Therefore, our paper enables the concrete land-use insights to reduce carbon emissions for specific regional
core-periphery places.
In general, the heterogeneous impacts of urban forms on carbon
emissions are tied to regional core-periphery structures across economic, planning and administrative dimensions. First, to address the
emerging conflict between excessive economic agglomeration and sustainable land use in the core regions, we advocate for decentralized
polycentric urban form policies. Polycentric development, by rationalizing capital, land and infrastructure allocation in multi-level urban
systems, can alleviate diseconomies of agglomeration of monocentric
structures in Chinese metropolises and promote coordinated development among core and peripheral regions. Apart from the configuration
of built environment, inter-city cooperation and other regional management and policy tools can facilitate this balanced urban form and
promote the carbon efficiency of land (Zhang et al., 2023). In peripheral
areas, urban growth management with relatively compact and contiguous development can effectively minimize sprawl and enhance the
carbon efficiency of land.
Policymakers should also consider the diversity of spatial contexts
(Dong et al., 2023), emphasizing synergies in centralized and decentralized urban forms and location-specific land use strategies for sustainable objectives. For example, ecological zones should strive for both
intensive utilization and modest complexity to preserve ecological corridors. In metropolitan areas, addressing over-compactness and maintaining scales of economies require more mixed land use strategies with
better integration of green spaces and accessibility to ecological resources. In this essence, the pocket parks and green roof systems (Zhang
et al., 2012) might be more effective than a large ‘central park’ for urban
climate modulation and carbon reduction. In less developed small cities
and metropolitan fringes, more regional collaborations should be
developed to leverage positive spillovers of central cities to increase
compactness and scale of land development in these areas and reduce
the outflows of resources due to enhanced connectivity (Xu et al., 2022;
Zhang et al., 2023, 2024). There is no one-size-fits-all strategy in land
use structures to reduce carbon emissions. Therefore, unpacking and
understanding regional heterogeneity have theoretical and practical
potential to reconcile debates on different land form strategies for carbon reductions. Urban land form management and practice should be
tailored to specific localities and regions.