Abstract
AbstractWe identify a disciplinary divide in how the environmental impacts of urbanization are presented in ecology and urban planning journals. We analyzed the sentiments expressed in 202,900 journal articles and found that articles in ecology journals discuss urbanization three times more negatively relative to urban planning journals. Articles in both disciplines identified the negative local impacts of urban growth on biodiversity, habitat, and other ecological outcomes. However, urban planning research also considered the positive global‐scale benefits of cities in enabling more efficient settlement patterns that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. These diverging perspectives are likely due to the different scales and scopes of the two disciplines, but also because of different counterfactuals: the alternative to urbanization might be car‐dependent exurbs, or simply no new development within the focal study area. Interdisciplinary collaborations may provide a path to reconcile the different perspectives and boost sustainability.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
