1 Introduction
As urban populations continue to increase globally, cities face twin demands: accommodate more people through compact development while simultaneously protecting and enhancing green infrastructure that provides ecosystem services, biodiversity, and wellbeing benefits. Traditionally, debates about urban form and ecology frame density and green space as competing priorities: densification for efficient land use and emissions reduction vs. greening for biodiversity, heat mitigation, and health. Yet, this dichotomy is increasingly challenged by research showing that dense cities can also be green cities, but only if density is integrated with multifunctional green infrastructure, governance coordination, and equitable access.
In this opinion article, I argue that urban density and greenness are compatible when viewed through a systems lens that integrates planning, greenspace policy, infrastructure design, environmental services, and equity. This approach moves beyond simplistic trade-offs to emphasize dynamic synergies between urban form and ecological functionality.
This article advances the current debate by arguing that the perceived incompatibility between urban density and greening is not primarily spatial, but institutional and systemic. It suggests that the persistence of this tension is rooted in fragmented governance structures, sectoral planning silos, and the absence of integrated socio-technical-ecological frameworks. By reframing density as a potential enabler of ecological performance rather than a constraint, this paper contributes a systems-based perspective that moves beyond traditional trade-off narratives and toward integrative urban development approaches.
2 A systems perspective on dense and green urbanism
Urban planners historically promote density because it reduces per capita land use and supports efficient service provision (). A systematic review found that higher density is positively correlated with several sustainability outcomes, such as reduced energy use, improved transit efficiency, and lower land consumption compared to sprawl-driven models, but density alone does not guarantee environmental benefits.
Crucially, density can concentrate environmental pressures, such as heat stress from impervious surfaces, loss of habitat patches, and inequitable access to green spaces in high-density neighborhoods. However, research suggests that these challenges are not intrinsic to density itself but emerge when green infrastructure is not integrated effectively ().
2.1 Urban green infrastructure as a critical mediator
Urban green infrastructure (UGI), including parks, street trees, green roofs, corridors, and waterways, delivers ecosystem services that are essential for resilient, liveable cities. Systematic reviews highlight the positive role of green infrastructure in mitigating the urban heat island effect, enhancing stormwater management, supporting biodiversity, and improving health outcomes ().
A growing body of work demonstrates that prioritizing UGI can lead to multiple co-benefits even in dense urban contexts. For example, green roofs reduce near-surface temperatures and energy demand in dense downtown environments by increasing evapotranspiration and shading. Research also shows how green interventions (e.g., vertical greening, micro-parks, connected green corridors) can elevate ecological values within urban edges without requiring expansive horizontal land take ().
Recent systematic research seeks to synthesize evidence about the simultaneous pursuit of densification and greening. One systematic review concludes that there is no a priori contradiction between dense development and urban green space provision, but their integration requires intentional policy and governance frameworks ().
Other reviews emphasize the importance of managing green spaces not as residual patches but as multifunctional infrastructures that provide cooling, habitat connectivity, recreation, and flood mitigation ().
2.2 Urban greening beyond residual space
Traditional planning often treats green space as residual, parks, leftover parcels, or buffer zones. However, contemporary research emphasizes multifunctional green infrastructure embedded within urban systems.
Green roofs, vertical greening, urban forests, green corridors, and nature-based solutions can be integrated into dense environments without requiring extensive horizontal expansion (). Singapore, for example, demonstrates how high-density development can coexist with vertical greening and biodiversity strategies, although such models require strong governance alignment and regulatory frameworks.
Moreover, biodiversity does not necessarily correlate linearly with low density. Studies show that carefully designed high-density environments can sustain species diversity through habitat connectivity and micro-ecological design. What matters is not simply the quantity of green space, but its configuration, connectivity, and ecological functionality.
The persistence of the trade-off narrative often reflects institutional silos: transport departments optimize density, environmental departments advocate greening, and digital transformation units pursue efficiency without integrated oversight. The absence of systemic coordination produces spatial compromises rather than synergies.
Emerging examples from cities such as Singapore and Barcelona demonstrate how dense urban environments can successfully integrate vertical greening, interconnected green corridors, and multifunctional public spaces when supported by coherent policy frameworks and design strategies. In Singapore, the “City in a Garden” approach embeds green infrastructure within high-density development through mechanisms such as green roofs, sky gardens, and biodiversity-sensitive planning (; ). Similarly, Barcelona's superblock model reconfigures street space to prioritize pedestrians, urban greenery, and social use within a compact urban fabric (). While these examples are context-specific, they illustrate that the perceived trade-off between density and greening is not inherent, but rather contingent on governance, planning integration, and design innovation. In this sense, the challenge is less about spatial limitation and more about systemic alignment across urban systems.
2.3 A systems perspective: integrating density and green infrastructure
Urban systems theory emphasizes interdependence among physical, social, technological, and ecological subsystems (). Cities are not static forms but dynamic, adaptive systems of systems ().
From this perspective, the compatibility of density and greening depends on four interlinked dimensions ():
Governance integration: aligning land-use planning, environmental policy, transport strategy, and digital infrastructure.
Design integration: embedding green infrastructure into buildings and mobility networks.
Technological enablement: using digital twins, sensor networks, and AI-enabled monitoring to optimize urban ecosystems.
Equity and access: ensuring dense development does not produce green deprivation.
Without integration across these dimensions, densification risks exacerbating heat exposure, inequitable access to nature, and social exclusion. With integration, density can enable compact ecological networks, walkability, shared infrastructure efficiency, and reduced land take.
Despite growing recognition of the need for integration, the persistence of the density–greening tension is largely driven by institutional and operational barriers. Urban planning, environmental management, and infrastructure development are often governed by separate departments with distinct objectives, performance metrics, and funding mechanisms. This fragmentation limits the ability to design and implement multifunctional solutions that simultaneously address density and ecological performance. Furthermore, existing regulatory frameworks frequently prioritize short-term development outputs, such as housing delivery targets, over long-term ecosystem services and resilience outcomes. As a result, integration remains conceptually accepted but practically under-realized.
The issue, therefore, is systemic capability rather than spatial possibility.
2.4 Digital intelligence as an enabler, not the driver
Smart city discourse has often focused on digital efficiency, data optimisation, and automation. However, technological systems must function as enablers of ecological integration rather than ends in themselves ().
Digital twins can simulate microclimate impacts of density configurations. Sensor networks can monitor tree canopy health and air quality. AI systems can optimize irrigation and biodiversity corridors. However, technology alone cannot resolve the density–green question; governance and design intent must precede technological deployment.
Evidence from urban digital transformation research indicates that cities that adopt systems-oriented governance structures are more successful in aligning sustainability and innovation agendas (; , ). Where digital transformation remains siloed, environmental performance gains are limited.
Thus, density becomes ecologically productive only when supported by integrated policy frameworks and data-driven environmental management.
2.5 Equity, justice, and the right to nature in dense cities
A further concern is whether densification disproportionately reduces green access in lower-income areas. Studies consistently show inequitable distribution of urban green space. If densification intensifies without protective frameworks, it risks reinforcing environmental injustice.
However, this outcome is not inevitable. Compact development can free peripheral land from sprawl, allowing restoration and conservation. Moreover, density can increase accessibility to well-distributed, high-quality green infrastructure within walkable distances.
Addressing equity in dense urban environments therefore requires moving beyond aggregate provision metrics toward more granular, place-based assessments of access, quality, and usability of green spaces. Without such consideration, densification risks reinforcing existing socio-spatial inequalities, even where overall green infrastructure provision appears sufficient at the city scale.
The World Health Organization recommends access to green space within 300 meters of residence. Achieving this target in low-density sprawl can be as challenging as in high-density cores, particularly when private land ownership restricts public access (Przewozna et al., ).
Thus, the question is not whether dense cities deny access to nature, but whether governance structures guarantee equitable ecological provision. To support this argument, Table 1 compares fragmented and systems-based approaches to dense and green urbanism.
Table 1
| Dimension | Fragmented approach | Systems-based integrated approach |
|---|---|---|
| Land use | Density prioritized independently of ecological planning | Density aligned with green corridors and habitat connectivity |
| Infrastructure | Gray infrastructure dominates | Hybrid gray-green infrastructure systems |
| Governance | Departmental silos | Cross-sectoral coordination frameworks |
| Technology | Efficiency-focused smart systems | Digital intelligence for ecological optimisation |
| Equity | Uneven access to green space | Universal access targets embedded in planning |
| Metrics | Floor-area ratio, housing units | Multi-criteria performance (carbon, biodiversity, health) |
Comparing fragmented and systems-based approaches to dense and green urbanism.
3 Discussion
The proposition that cities must choose between density and greening is analytically flawed. The tension arises from reductionist planning frameworks that separate spatial form from ecological systems, governance from design, and digital innovation from environmental objectives. The dominant framing of density vs. greening is therefore not only analytically reductive but also counterproductive, as it reinforces siloed decision-making and constrains the development of integrative urban solutions.
Density, when poorly integrated, can produce heat islands, biodiversity loss, and social inequities. Yet low density, when sprawling and car-dependent, can result in higher aggregate ecological degradation and land consumption.
A systems-based perspective reframes the debate. Dense urbanism can:
Reduce per capita land use.
Support transit-oriented development.
Enable vertical and embedded greening.
Facilitate shared green infrastructure investment.
Enhance ecological monitoring through digital systems.
However, these benefits emerge only when planning transcends sectoral silos. Urban governance must move from linear optimisation toward multi-criteria system integration. Metrics must expand beyond housing units and floor-area ratios to include biodiversity indices, ecosystem services, health outcomes, and equity indicators.
The compatibility of dense and green cities is therefore not a binary condition but a governance capability question.
Rather than asking whether density undermines nature, cities should evaluate how density can support ecological performance when integrated with multifunctional green infrastructure, participatory governance, and digital intelligence.
In this sense, the future of urban sustainability lies not in choosing between compactness and ecological richness, but in redesigning urban systems so that they reinforce one another.
Looking forward, advances in digital urban systems, including urban digital twins and real-time environmental monitoring, offer new opportunities to operationalise this integration by enabling dynamic optimisation of green infrastructure within dense urban settings. However, their effectiveness will depend on their alignment with governance frameworks and planning practices, rather than technological capability alone.
4 Conclusion
Cities can indeed be both dense and green. The apparent contradiction dissolves when urban form is understood within an integrated socio-technical-ecological framework. Density becomes environmentally productive when supported by coordinated governance, embedded green infrastructure, technological enablement, and equitable access policies.
The challenge is not spatial incompatibility, but systemic fragmentation.
The path forward requires moving beyond trade-off narratives toward integrative urban systems thinking. Only then can dense cities become ecologically resilient, socially just, and environmentally regenerative.
Statements
Author contributions
VJ: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
BattyM. (2017). The New Science of Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 496.
2
BeatleyT. (2011). Biophilic Cities. Washington, DC: Island Press. doi: 10.5822/978-1-59726-986-5
3
JavidrooziV. (2024). “The city as a system of places: smart placemaking for future living,” in Placemaking: People, Properties, Planning (Washington, DC: Island Press), 75–90. doi: 10.1108/978-1-83753-130-120241010
4
JavidrooziV.ShahH.FeldmanG. (2019). Urban computing and smart cities: towards changing city processes by applying enterprise systems integration practices. IEEE Access7, 108023–108034. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2933045
5
JavidrooziV.ShahH.FeldmanG. (2022). Facilitating smart city development through adaption of the learnings from enterprise systems integration. Sustainability14:3730. doi: 10.3390/su14073730
6
JavidrooziV.ShahH.FeldmanG. (2023). FABS: a framework for addressing the business process change challenges for smart city development. IEEE Access1, 64850–64885. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3289213
7
MadureiraH.MonteiroA. (2021). Going green and going dense: a systematic review of compatibilities and conflicts in urban research. Sustainability13, 1–20. doi: 10.3390/su131910643
8
McDonaldR. I.AronsonM. F. J.BeatleyT.BellerE.BazoM.GrossingerR.et al. (2023). Denser and greener cities: green interventions to achieve both urban density and nature. People Nature5, 84–102. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10423
9
MuellerN.Rojas-RuedaD.KhreisH.CirachM.AndrésD.BallesterJ.et al. (2020). Changing the urban design of cities for health: the superblock model. Environ Int.134:105132. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105132
10
NewmanP.BeatleyT.BoyerH. (2017). Resilient Cities: Overcoming Fossil Fuel Dependence. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1–253. doi: 10.5822/978-1-61091-686-8_1
11
PaudelS.StatesS. L. (2023). Urban green spaces and sustainability: exploring the ecosystem services and disservices of grassy lawns versus floral meadows. Urban For Urban Green.84:127932. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127932
12
PontM. B.HauptP.BergP.AlstädeV.HeymanA. (2021). Systematic review and comparison of densification effects and planning motivations. Build. Cities2, 378–401. doi: 10.5334/bc.125
13
PrzewoźnaP.InglotA.MielewczykM.MaczkaK.MatczakP. (2024). Accessibility to urban green spaces: a critical review of WHO recommendations in the light of tree-covered areas assessment. Ecol. Indic.166:112548. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112548
Summary
Keywords
green infrastructure, nature-based solutions, sustainable cities, systems thinking, urban density, urban governance
Citation
Javidroozi V (2026) Dense and green are not mutually exclusive: a systems view for sustainable cities. Front. Sustain. Cities 8:1813975. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2026.1813975
Received
19 February 2026
Revised
03 April 2026
Accepted
22 April 2026
Published
08 May 2026
Volume
8 - 2026
Edited by
Peleg Kremer, Villanova University, United States
Reviewed by
Muhammad Mushahid Anwar, University of Gujrat, Pakistan
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Javidroozi.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Vahid Javidroozi, vahid.javidroozi@bcu.ac.uk
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.