Do
fears become reality?
Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development
©Australian Urban Design Research Centre
Paula Hooper, Nicole Edwards, Sarah Foster, Julian Bolleter
2. Executive summary
Urban consolidation policies play a crucial role in creating sustainable, liveable, and healthy neighbourhoods. However, resistance from communities driven by concerns about the impacts of infill projects on their local area pose challenges to urban densification across Australian cities. This study retrospectively examined the anticipated concerns of surrounding residents (n=185) regarding a proposed infill development in Perth, Western Australia, and assessed whether these concerns were realised or alleviated post-construction. It also explored the reasons new residents' (n=136) chose to move into the higher-density apartment development. Pre-construction, the most common concerns of surrounding residents were traffic congestion (67.0%), car parking problems (53.5%), and building heights (43.8%). After construction, traffic congestion and car parking remained the top concerns, although the proportion of respondents citing these as issues decreased by 17.3% and 15.1%, respectively. The concern over building heights dropped by nearly half and worries about the number of new dwellings decreased from 36% to 26%. When examining shifts in individual residents’ perceptions, about 23% of existing residents indicated that, although they had concerns about the building height and traffic congestion before development, they did not have the same anxieties post-development. New residents reported safety for walking and cycling, access to the train station and perceived safety from crime as the most important factors for relocation to infill development. The study provides evidence that evaluations of infill projects could help demonstrate the positive outcomes associated with infill, helping to reassure the community and reduce concerns about the perceived potential negative impacts of urban densification.
3. Introduction
3.1 Population growth and urban infill targets
Currently, approximately 56% of the global population resides in cities or urban areas, and this is projected to more than double by 2050 (The World Bank, 2022). The highest projections estimate that the Australian population will double by 2066 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017), and its four largest cities, Sydney, Perth, Melbourne, and Brisbane, are expected to absorb almost 10 million new residents by 2050 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017) Australian state governments have responded by setting urban infill targets to consolidate new medium to high-density housing development (of between 50 per cent and 70 per cent (National Housing Supply Council, 2010)) in existing urban areas underpinned by Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) principles. (Rowley & Phibbs, 2012; Western Australian Government, 2010; Western Australian Planning Commission, 2010)
Compact city approaches characterised by high-density housing co-located with mixed land uses and proximate well-functioning public transport nodes deliver many sustainability benefits. (Oecd, 2012) These include more efficient land use and economical delivery of infrastructure and services, reduced car dependency and CO2 emissions, improved public transport feasibility and higher public transport ridership; reduced traffic congestion and lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions (Giles-Corti et al., 2022; Giles-Corti et al., 2016; Ibraeva et al., 2020; Rowley et al., 2017; Stevenson et al., 2016) and the protection of natural habitats (Ritchie et al., 2021). It also positively impacts public health by promoting walking, cycling, and active modes of transport (Burton, 2000; Ibraeva et al., 2020)
3.2 Community concerns about infill development
Despite a strong policy push for higher urban densities and more compact, sustainable city development, the challenge lies in turning these goals into reality when delivering infill projects in existing areas of Australian cities. The concept of urban infill in Australian cities often carries negative connotations when residents envisage their changing city and can be fuelled by (mis)conceptions and fear about how a project might impact their local area. As a result, urban infill often becomes a focal point for contestation, conflict, and resistance between local communities and planning proponents aiming to reshape urban environments (Bolleter et al., 2021; Kelly & Donegan, 2015; Newton & Glackin, 2014; Robinson & Attuyer, 2020; Ruming, 2014)
Community concerns and criticisms associated with infill development projects and “too much density” typically centre around physical and social issues that challenge or detract from an Australian suburb’s perceived (and valued) quintessential suburban lifestyle and character. Particular concerns include: traffic congestion and inadequate parking, loss of open space, negative impacts on urban forests, the form, scale and height of buildings, sunlight or daylight being blocked by “tall buildings”, increased noise, loss of privacy and amenity, declining property prices and whether or not local hospitals, schools and other services can keep up with local population growth (Downs, 2005; Fischel, 2001; Scally & Tighe, 2015)
Other previously cited concerns relate to the perceived social character and behaviour of the prospective new residents and their presumed social incompatibility with the existing residents (i.e., students, renters or lower socioeconomic groups, and the antisocial behaviour often ascribed to these residents) (Davison et al., 2016; Nematollahi et al., 2016). This may be amplified due to the stigmatisation of “affordable” housing allocations, which are frequently conflated with ‘public or
‘social housing’, and for many private residents, conjure images of crime, urban decay, and residents who are somehow 'different' (Palmer et al., 2004). Fears about the tangible changes to a community can also be amplified by the distrust of planning agencies and private developers and a perception that they are profiting at the expense of the existing community (Kwok et al., 2018; Rice, 2016)
Building consensus for implementing infill policies between affected communities, local councils, and state government agencies has often proved challenging in Australia (Nematollahi, 2021) These differing attitudes can result in mobilised opposition or support for local development projects (Kasperson et al., 1992) Community resistance to proposed density changes has resulted in delays or derailment of development processes and arguably hindered the planning system’s ability to deliver on its infill, housing location and density targets These targets are crucial for the success of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and activity centre urban policies (Hedgcock & Brunner, 2015; Rowley & Phibbs, 2012; Ruming, 2014) As a result , a gap has emerged between the compact city model advocated for in Australian metropolitan planning frameworks and the fragmented, piecemeal on-the-ground implementation of urban densification (Hurley et al., 2017)
3.3
Evaluating community experiences and responses to infill development
A challenge facing policymakers is assessing the qualitative characteristics of cities, such as place attachment (the cognitive-emotional bond between people and their significant environments) and satisfaction with planning initiatives (Jannianpour et al., 2023; Lewicka, 2005). Studies have shown that the concept of a ‘home’ neighbourhood is a place that creates a sense of security, selfidentity, and autonomy (Hiscock et al., 2001, Evans, 2004) Community psychologists and urban planners argue that attachment to one's residential neighbourhood plays a crucial role in motivating residents to engage with their neighbours, voice concerns about local issues, suggest solutions, and choose to stay and advocate for change rather than leave (Manzo & Perkins, 2006; Ghafourian & Hesari, 2018). This attachment strengthens over time, evolves with experience, and changes gradually (Lewicka, 2005).
The debate around public perceptions of higher-density housing and infill development has been constrained within the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) discourse, which positions public opposition to higher-density housing as a selfish form of localised protest (Einstein et al., 2018; McClymont & O'Hare, 2008; McNee & Pojani, 2022; Ruming, 2014). However, critics argue that this basic dichotomous view between the "rational" or "general interest" of public bodies and the "narrow (backyard) self-interest" of local opponents fails to understand the complex issues associated with land use, infill and densification (Gibson, 2005; Wexler, 1996). Devine-Wright (2009) propose that socalled 'NIMBY' responses should be re-conceived as place-protective actions, which are founded upon processes of place attachment and place identity and have called for research to unpick how factors that might disrupt place attachment impact a community’s place-protective behaviours and opposition to infill development (Devine-Wright, 2009)
Given the complexity of perceptions of infill development, policymakers and planners must understand how the community understands and experiences a higher-density infill development project and the drivers that elicit residents' negative assumptions and resistance to such developments (McClymont & O'Hare, 2008; Ruming et al., 2012). Indeed, planners and policymakers frame urban densification projects differently from how the community interprets and perceives them.
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development Revision A 11.03.25
While post-occupancy evaluation of new residents who have moved into apartment developments are relatively common (Xu et al., 2023) few studies have sought to evaluate changes in the views, experiences, and acceptance of higher density infill developments by their surrounding (host) community after their completion and the arrival of new residents (Opit et al., 2020). One notable exception is a study of medium-high density developments in Sydney and Brisbane, which found that several years after occupancy, 73% of the participating residents noticed little or no effect due to the developments (Davison et al., 2017) Of the 22% who reported adverse effects, increases in antisocial behaviour were the main problem, followed by traffic and parking problems. While this example reiterates several key concerns raised in the literature, it also shows that the majority of residents were not significantly impacted by the new developments.
As such, evaluating the attitudes and experiences of residents who live around new infill and higher density developments, including whether their pre-development concerns met the postdevelopment reality, is essential to inform the planning and design of future infill development projects, their residential surroundings and amenity provision. Knowledge and examples of the characteristics of infill developments that have been done well and neighbourhood residents perceive as enhancing, rather than detracting from the local community, will also help inform and facilitate future consultation with host communities to help mediate community objections. Equally, greater understanding and acknowledgement of the failings of infill developments – from the perspective of host communities – and strategies to address these in future projects could ultimately produce better planning outcomes and community acceptance.
3.4 Infill development in Perth, Western Australia
The Greater Perth region extends 120km north and south of the city centre and is characterised by sprawling low-density residential suburbs (Rowley et al., 2017). To fulfil the Western Australian state government's infill target that 47% of future dwellings in metropolitan Perth be built within existing urban areas (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2010, 2018), strategic planning has sought to direct the infill development within a hierarchy of activity centres located close to existing public transport hubs (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2018). The study aimed to evaluate the community experience of a higher density infill development in Perth, and in doing so:
1) Retrospectively examine the concerns surrounding residents had about the proposed infill development.
2) Examine whether the concerns of surrounding residents were realised or dissipated postconstruction of the infill development.
3) Examine new residents' reasons for moving into the higher-density infill redevelopment.
4) Assess whether the infill development delivered its projected benefits, using the example of the public transport use of new and existing residents.
University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development
4. Methods
4.1 Study site
The focus of this study is a high profile 9.4-hectare infill project in Perth, Western Australia comprising 750 new homes in medium to high-rise (6-8 storey) apartment buildings arranged around a historic Football Oval and adjacent to a train station (Figure 1) The development sought to extend the existing local town centre north of the rail line, which divides the area into two sections. The ground floor of the apartment buildings is programmed with commercial and retail premises. Resident car parking is generally provided in building basements. The project also included new state-of-the-art clubrooms for the football club, opened the existing football oval for public use and restored the historic railway building into a cultural centre. In addition, the project included Western Australia's first basement Park and Ride facility (with 200 bays) that integrated the development with the adjacent train station. The project was developed under a neighbourhood development corporation model, led by the State land development agency in the suburb of Claremont, nine kilometres from the Perth city centre. The Town of Claremont is in the top three per cent of Australia's most advantaged local government areas. Work began in 2012 and at the time of this study (2022) the development was nearly complete.
Figure 1: Claremont on the Park redevelopment: Top: Location of the development in relation to the existing town centre and train station; Bottom left - May 2008 Claremont Oval before development; Bottom rightOctober 2022 Claremont on the Park development.
4.2 Review of prior community consultation
We obtained a summary of the community consultation feedback from the state government land developer, gathered through surveys completed on an open day at the proposed development site and written submissions to the local government. The main concerns were the height of the buildings, the interruption to traffic flow, a lack of parking, the increase in density/population, the loss of mature trees, and the design or aesthetics of the development. The concerns raised were grouped into themes to inform the survey questions (Table 1). The developer's design guide was also reviewed, and the design principles that informed the development and anticipated outcomes were identified to inform survey questions (Table 1).
4.3 Survey questions
Using our Map My Say survey platform (Map My Say, 2020), participants mapped their home address or, if they preferred not to provide their exact address, the nearest street intersection and the length of time they had lived there. Participants whose residence in the area surrounding the infill development pre-dated the development construction were classified as "existing residents". Those residing within the Claremont on the Park infill development were categorised as "new development residents". Participants who moved into the surrounding area within the last five years, after the development was completed were designated as "new surrounding' residents".
4.4 Participant recruitment
The survey was administered over a six-week period through September and October 2022. An invitation letter was posted to all households within a 1200 metre (as the crow flies) buffer of the development (n=2075) and a randomly selected sample of n=300 new apartment addresses within the Claremont on the Park development (total n=2375). Follow-up reminder postcards were sent two weeks later to all households that had not responded. All recruitment materials contained a URL and QR code that directed them to the Map My Say survey website. The UWA Human Research Ethics Board (2020/RA/1/490/591) granted ethics approval for the study
4.5 Existing residents – concerns before and after the infill development
Existing residents living around the redevelopment site were asked to reflect on their concerns prior to the redevelopment and indicate any of the ten factors that concerned them (Table 1). Next, respondents were asked to think about their experiences post-development and identify any concerns they currently had (after construction) from the same ten factors. An open-ended question was included to allow participants to indicate "any other issues or concerns not listed' before and after development. For each factor, the frequency and percentage of participants who identified it as a concern before and after development were calculated. Change variables were computed for each existing resident for each of the ten factors to quantify which factors were identified as a concern before and/or after development. Responses were coded into four groups: (1) No concern before and no concern after development; (2) Concern before but no concern after development; (3) Concern before and concern after development; (4) No concern before but concern after development
One-way Analysis of Variances (ANOVAs) was run on each pre-development factor of concern to compare the percentage of participants who listed this as a concern by their location within the different buffer distances from the infill development site.
4.6 New residents' reasons for moving to the area or infill development
New residents were asked to indicate how important 12 factors were in their decision to move into the new development or the surrounding Claremont area (Table 1). The number and percentage of participants who rated the factor as somewhat or very important for each item was computed. This was examined separately for new residents who moved into the new redevelopment and those who moved into the surrounding area. Respondents were also asked to indicate where they relocated from and their previous dwelling type (Table 1).
4.7 Public transport use
Participants were asked about their public transport use for the journey or commute to work and for non-work related trips ( Table 1). One-way ANOVAs were run to compare the percentage of participants who took different transit modes for the journey to work and for non-work trips by resident type.
Table 1: Survey Questions
Existing residents: Concerns pre- and post-development Response Options
Pre-Development
Think back to before the Claremont Oval was redeveloped. Which of the following did you anticipate would be a concern with the redevelopment of the oval?
Post Development
Now the Claremont on the Park development is complete, which of the following are now a concern?
(Tick all that apply)
Building heights
Number of new dwellings
Traffic congestion
Car parking problems
Crowded public transport
Noise issues
Loss of trees / Retention of trees
Safety or crime issues
Overlooking / privacy concerns
Environmental impacts
New residents: Reasons for moving to the development / development area Response Options
How important were each of the following in your decision to move to Claremont / Claremont on the Park?
Access to the railway station
Access to quality parks and open spaces
Access to the Claremont football oval
Access to a variety of shops and services
Range of housing options
Affordability of housing
Very important
Somewhat important
Neutral
Low importance
Not at all important
Access to a variety of places for dining / drinking out
Access to a variety of recreation & leisure facilities
Sense of community
Safety from crime
Safety for walking and cycling
New residents: Previous residential location
Where did you live previously?
What suburb did you move from?
What kind of dwelling did you previously live in?
Existing + New residents: Public transport use
For the primary or largest portion of your journey or commute to work, what mode of transport do you usually take?
How do you usually complete the majority of non-work trips – i.e., for shopping, personal business, social or recreation activities?
Response Options
Elsewhere in the Perth metro area
Regional WA
Elsewhere in Australia
Relocated from overseas
Select from a list of suburbs
Detached house / stand-alone dwelling
Duplex, triplex, row, terrace, townhouse, villa
Apartment
Response Options
Private car / motorbike Train Bus Walk
Bicycle
E-bike / E-scooter
Taxi / Uber / Rideshare
Other
Not applicable
5. Results
A total of 321 surveys were returned which included complete responses to all survey questions. Of the study population, 57.6% (n=185) were existing residents, 15.9% (n=51) were new residents who moved into the development, and 26.5% (n=85) were new residents to the surrounding area. The overall response rate for study participation was 13.5%, with 13.0% for existing and new surrounding residents and 17.0% for new development residents.
The surrounding residents lived a mean distance of 929.9 metres from the redevelopment site, 11.7% lived within 400m, 37.6 % within 800m and 51.0% within 1km of the redevelopment site (results not shown). Of the surrounding residents, 52.9% indicated they had been aware of the redevelopment plans, but only 17.8% participated in the community consultation process.
5.1 Participant demographics
Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the study sample stratified by resident type There were slightly more female study participants (42.1%) than males (30.5%) and those who preferred not to disclose their gender (27.4%). Of the study participants who provided their age (59.0%), most existing residents and development residents belonged to the silent and baby boomer generations. In contrast, most new surrounding residents were Millennials and Generation X. Participants who reported their employment status were predominantly working or in full-time education in all residential groups. Most existing and new surrounding residents lived in detached houses. All new development residents lived in an apartment.
Table 2: Demographic characteristics of the study sample by resident type
Gender
Generation
The Silent Generation (born 1928–1945) / Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964)
Generation X (born 1965–1980)
in 2021 = 41-56
Employment
Income
Don't know / Prefer not to say
Dwelling Type
5.2 Existing residents' concerns before and after infill development
Figure 2 presents the percentage of existing residents (n=185) who identified each of the ten factors as a concern before and after redevelopment. The most often collectively cited concerns before development were "traffic congestion" (67.0%), "car parking problems" (53.5%), and "building heights" (43.8%). Notably, traffic congestion and car parking remained the two most frequently mentioned
concerns post-development, although the number of respondents identifying these as issues decreased by 17.3% and 15.1%, respectively. The frequency of concern for building heights almost halved post-development, and concerns regarding the number of new dwellings dropped from 36% to 26% post-construction. Only minor changes occurred for the loss of trees, environmental impacts, and safety concerns. There were no differences in the concerns raised by the location of surrounding residents (i.e., their proximity to the development site).
Figure 3 more closely examines the concerns reported by the existing residents. Results detail changes in residents' concerns once the development was complete. Notably, many existing residents reported no concerns across all factors before and after construction. Anticipated concerns were not realised across several factors. Approximately 23% of existing residents indicated that, although they had concerns about the building height and traffic congestion before development, they did not have the same worries post-development. Similarly, 20% of existing residents anticipated car parking problems that did not remain a concern after development. Further, 15% of residents had expressed concerns about the number of new dwellings and loss of trees before development but did not indicate these were concerns postdevelopment. Despite the number of participants showing a positive change in perceptions, several factors were identified as concerns before and after development by some existing residents. Traffic congestion (43.8%) and car parking problems (33.5%) remained of particular concern, with 44% and 34% of participants, respectively, indicating these as concerns before and after development. About 20% of participants also felt that building heights, the number of new dwellings and the loss of trees remained a concern after development.
Figure 2: Percentage of existing residents (n=185) who identified factors of concern before and after development
Figure 3: Change in perceptions: Percentage of existing residents (n=185) who rated factors of concern before and after development
5.3 New residents' reasons for moving to the infill development area or site
Half (50.5%) of the new development residents (n=51) downsized to an apartment dwelling from a detached house and 12.9% from a smaller duplex, triplex, townhouse or villa-style dwelling, whilst 15.3% previously lived in an apartment. Just under half (46%) of all new residents moved/relocated from neighbouring suburbs, and 15% moved from within the suburb. New development residents reported safety for walking and cycling, access to the train station and perceived safety from crime as the most important factors for relocation to the study area ( Figure 4). Access to the football oval was the least important factor amongst all new residents.
Figure 4: Reasons for moving to the infill development area or site – Percentage of participants who rated each of 10 factors as being somewhat or very important in their decision to move into the development site or surrounding area, by type of new resident
5.4 Public transport use
Most work and non-work trips across the three resident groups were undertaken using a private vehicle. There were significant differences in the usual commute to work journey mode of transport by resident type. A higher proportion of the new development residents and new surrounding residents used the train, bus and walked compared with existing residents (p=0.045, Figure 5). For non-work trips, new residents used the train (7%) and walked (24%) significantly more than the existing residents (p<0.001, Figure 5).
Figure 5: Percentage of residents who use different modes of transport to work (top) and for leisure trips (bottom) by resident type: Existing residents (n=185); New development residents (n=51); New surrounding residents (n=85).
6. Discussion
This paper offers valuable insights into collective community perceptions as well as unique perspectives on how views changed in response to a new infill development that introduced a mix of higher density residential and commercial spaces, with improved connections to an existing train station and retail precinct.
Amid unprecedented housing shortages and continued urbanisation across Australian cities, a fundamental element of urban planning policies and frameworks in Australia is to intensify housing and redevelop land in existing neighbourhoods. Infill development is advocated to meet Australia's urban consolation targets and deliver more sustainable, liveable, and healthier communities (Dodson & Gleeson, 2007). However, community resistance to densification often remains a barrier to delivering infill development across established areas in Australian cities. One issue is the misalignment between policymakers' and community members' perceptions and experiences regarding the benefits and experiences of urban densification. A deeper understanding of community stress and anxiety caused by the uncertainty of new development, which leads to local opposition, is of both conceptual and practical importance.
Social and environmental psychological theory defines "place attachment" as the cognitiveemotional bond between people and their significant environments, usually a familiar locations such as the home or neighbourhood (Jannianpour et al., 2023; Lewicka, 2005). Place attachment correlates with length of residence (Brown et al., 2003) and physical and social dimensions of the neighbourhood (Hidalgo & HernÁNdez, 2001) and changes gradually (Lewicka, 2010; Gong & Söderberg, 2023). Further, it is an essential precursor to community action, including whether residents advocate for the protection (or improvement) of their communities (Manzo & Perkins, 2006; Ghafourian & Hesari, 2018). As such, local opposition to higher density infill development may be a form of place-protective action, which arises when new developments disrupt pre-existing emotional attachments and threaten place-related identity processes (Devine-Wright, 2009). Indeed, studies have shown that place attachment explains more variance than sociodemographic variables about a proposed development – the more attached residents feel towards the affected area, the more negative beliefs are expressed about the proposal (Devine-Wright, 2009). As such, it is essential to understand the attitudes and experiences of residents who live around new infill and higher-density developments and to explore if their pre-development concerns meet the post-development realities.
Whilst a few studies (Davison et al., 2017) have explored neighbouring residents' changes in experiences and effects of unwanted affordable housing development, there is a lack of studies evaluating community experiences of infill development. Addressing this gap, our study is unique in its evaluation of surrounding residents' experiences of an infill, higher-density development by exploring whether community concerns associated with the anticipation of the redevelopment had materialised once the development was built.
Overall, our findings indicate that the anticipated impacts of the planned infill development were greater than those reported by neighbouring residents once the development was complete and occupied. Our results also revealed that most existing residents had few concerns about the infill development. This finding is similar to Davison's (2017) study of medium to high-density affordable housing developments in Sydney and Brisbane, which found that 73% of residents noticed little or no effect due to the developments (Davison et al., 2017).
Our findings reiterate key concerns about infill development previously raised in the literature (Davison et al., 2017; Davison et al., 2016; Dear, 1992; McNee & Pojani, 2022). For example, before development, the main factors of concern were traffic congestion and car parking problems, the number of new dwellings, the loss of trees, and building heights. Increased traffic and competition for car parking are commonly expressed concerns at the forefront of the infill debate by surrounding residents (McNee & Pojani, 2022; Taylor, 2014).
Even though the concerns of our study participants appeared to be alleviated, half the study population reported being concerned about traffic congestion post-development. Nonetheless, it is important to note that this is an inner-middle neighbourhood, close to critical infrastructure and located on traffic routes linking Perth's western suburbs and the city. Residents in the study area are routinely exposed to the increased traffic volumes and parking hassles accompanying football games, showgrounds, retail and sporting facilities surrounding the development site. Thus, it is crucial to consider that study participants’ concerns may have conflated traffic and car parking concerns relating to the development with broader perceptions of increasing traffic volume and congestion in the western suburbs.
The reduction in parking concerns may be partly due to the 200 additional underground park-andride car parking bays built within the development. Also, the proximity and easy access to the train station should encourage residents to use public transport. Indeed, our results found that the new development residents were using the train or active modes of transportation significantly more for both work and non-work trips. Reduced parking concerns might also be explained by the new residential buildings providing generous car parking for residents and visitors in the basements. Apartment policies in Australia require minimum residential car parking provisions, which are lower within close proximity to public transport (NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2015; Western Australian Government, 2010). However, studies have indicated there remains an imbalance between parking provisions and the amount of parking actually needed by apartment residents (De Gruyter et al., 2023) A recent survey of 1300 apartment residents in Perth, Melbourne and Sydney found that 13.4% of households did not own a car but were still allocated a parking space. Moreover, 14% of residents had an undersupply of car parking, whilst 20% had an oversupply of car parking (i.e., more allocated spaces than cars owned) (De Gruyter et al., 2023). Other studies have also found that TOD households own fewer cars than households living outside of TODs (Center for Transit-Oriented Development, 2004; Dong, 2021). As such, there has been a call for planning policy to 'unbundle' parking spaces from the purchase price or rental cost of apartments to offer residents a selection of apartments with car parking to better suit their preferences (De Gruyter et al., 2023; Manville, 2016), whilst improving the affordability and attractiveness of apartment housing options (Gabbe & Pierce, 2017; Manville & Pinski, 2020). Moreover, this would free up car parking spaces for households that need them, thus reducing pressure on the surrounding streets.
This finding is particularly relevant for infill development in TOD precincts and highlights the need to consider dwelling type and location in relation to residents' commuting decisions and preferences. Residents may self-select into apartment developments in TOD precincts out of choice to live carfree (or with fewer cars per household) (Cervero, 2004) Indeed, access to the railway station was a significant factor for relocation amongst 90% of the new infill development residents. Notably, new development residents had significantly higher train use for work and non-work trips than the existing residents.
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development Revision A 11.03.25
Building heights and anticipated numbers of new dwellings are typically contentious issues associated with urban densification (Davison et al., 2016; Ibraeva et al., 2020; McNee & Pojani, 2022). In this study, building heights were a concern for just under half the surrounding residents before development. However, after development, concerns around building heights almost halved, and nearly a quarter of existing residents concerned about building heights before development had a positive change in perception after construction. Similarly, ten per cent fewer participants reported concerns about the number of new dwellings post-development, and 15% of existing residents who were concerned about the number of additional dwellings before development had a positive change in perception after construction.
These findings relate to the literature suggesting that the design of the built form significantly affects the perceived density and community acceptance of urban infill projects (Stamps, 1998) A study in Adelaide, Australia, investigated community perceptions of residential density (Sivam et al., 2012). Participants ranked development as high or medium density because of the building height and number of floors. This research revealed a threshold of three storeys for medium density, above which development was perceived as high density (Sivam et al., 2012) However, whilst the higher numbers of dwellings apparent in the multi-dwelling examples resulted in perceptions of higher densities, where participants were unsure of the number of dwellings, the buildings were perceived/ ranked as lower density. The apparent size of dwellings was also noted, with developments appearing to have larger dwellings being perceived as a lower density. This finding suggests that the built form and design of the development can lower the perceived density by reducing the visual cues for the number of dwellings (Sivam et al., 2012). Moreover, reasons provided for their opinions of the density level related to the site coverage, the bulk of buildings, small setbacks to boundaries and the lack of open space or landscaping associated with the development (Sivam et al., 2012). Others have also found factors reducing the perceived density and height of apartment buildings related to ground floor activation and landscaping, regular and substantial tree plantings, generous straight canyons, building setbacks and, to a lesser extent, fenestration treatments (Stamps, 1998)
Together, these findings suggest that perception of density may have less to do with the building type or height but rather with the design of the building itself (Stamps, 1998) and highlight the importance of design quality to reshape people's negative associations with density. Infill and apartment design policies should guide the built form of multi-dwelling buildings. Urban design guidelines should be developed to govern how developments at higher densities can achieve positive perceptions. Indeed, the reduced levels of concern observed in our case study may reflect the commonly held perceptions about the high design and construction quality of the studied development.
Reduced concern around building heights may reflect that the project designers limited the building heights to medium rise, not high-rise, which might have been a case of 'too much too soon.' Moreover, it is essential to note that the new buildings were not much higher than the old stadium structure they replaced. A crucial factor that may have led to the substantial reduction in concern around building heights was that the heights delivered in the project were as per the planning scheme and what had been advertised and approved in the master plan. There are recent examples of infill projects where the heights of the previously approved apartment buildings have significantly exceeded the approved land zone through height bonuses –triggering resident uproar. Such approvals erode community confidence in the planning system and feed into the community's distrust of the developers and the "system" (Davison et al., 2017) This situation compounds community cynicism that TOD and urban densification in existing suburbs represent an unholy alliance of state government planning agencies and private developers who are 'lining their own
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development Revision A 11.03.25
pockets' at the expense of the existing community (Kwok et al., 2018; Rice, 2016) It is not necessarily that residents did not support height or are anti-development – they do not support the change to the height above what they were communicated it would be. The fact that building heights in this project adhered to previously approved levels undoubtedly helped to alleviate such concerns.
Removing green space and trees in densifying urban areas is often a significant area of contention for existing residents (Haaland & van den Bosch, 2015). Indeed, the loss of trees was rated a significant concern for 40% of residents before development, which fell just marginally to 36% postdevelopment. One quarter (25%) of surrounding residents had concerns before and after. Notably, 12% of participants had an adverse change in perception, expressing concerns about the loss of trees after construction, having had no concerns before development. Analysis showed that mature trees along the southern edge of the Claremont on the park site were removed to facilitate the new development. Unsurprisingly, this triggered substantial concern for existing residents. Given that the removal of trees is often required, significant trees must be transplanted, where possible, or replaced with semi-mature specimens during the development process. There is also no statutory protection of significant trees in Perth (Brunner & Cozens, 2013) A policy enabling this may also address such concerns as rightly raised by our respondents.
A failure to deliver sufficient physical and social infrastructure to communities accommodating infill development is another factor of contention for infill developments. Community concerns centre on the need for existing schools, community services, and social infrastructure to accommodate growth in the local population (Downs, 2005; Fischel, 2001; Scally & Tighe, 2015). However, the case study Claremont is an "amenity-rich" area with existing social, retail, and community infrastructure surrounding the development. This adds to its attractiveness and liveability but perhaps makes it better equipped to accommodate the infill and additional population. This reinforces the need to focus infill development on areas with sufficient infrastructure to support the growing population or to ensure these social infrastructures are genuinely delivered as part of quality urban development. The State Planning Policy SPP 4.2 - Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (Western Australian Government, 2010) and the new Metronet Precinct design guide aim to increase housing in and around appropriate centres and train stations and increase the diversity of entertainment, social and transactional uses to create more compact 'urban villages' that will provide amenity, services and employment for growing local communities. Indeed, our study also examined new residents' reasons for relocating to the new infill development. Access to the train station, the walkability of the area and a variety of shops, services, amenities and destinations were critical factors in their decision to relocate to the infill development.
Half (50.5%) of the new development residents downsized to an apartment dwelling from a detached house and, 15% of the new residents who moved into the new Claremont on the Park infill development were from the Claremont suburb. Coupled with the fact that a quarter of our sample of new residents were retired, the development provided housing diversity which allowed residents to downsize as their circumstances changed without leaving their home neighbourhood. (McGreevy, Musolino, & Baum, 2023). The academic evidence on place attachment highlights older people's desire to remain in their neighbourhood as they age, providing a meaningful, familiar sociophysical space where they can maintain their social networks and identities (Lebrusán & Gómez, 2022) Remaining in a familiar neighbourhood and community has been shown to have physical and cognitive benefits (Iecovich, 2014) and impacts on self-esteem (Peace et al., 2011) for elderly residents.
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development Revision A 11.03.25
However, the new development also attracted younger residents, with 60% of the new infill development residents being GenX (born 1965-1980) or millennials (born 1981-1995). Even though it is generally believed that people in Australia prefer low-density living, a Study in Melbourne found that young people and empty nesters' choice of housing is shifting towards apartment living in the inner city based upon their desire to be more active and portable (Fincher, 2004). Collectively, these findings suggest there is a market for apartment living in well-serviced and liveable urban centres.
6.1 Limitations
While a novel aspect of this study was the focus on participants who remained in situ throughout the development, we acknowledge that participants who opposed the proposed development may have moved out of the area, impacting the results. Whilst the strength of this paper was the ability to measure individual change in perceptions regarding typical infill concerns, participants were asked to retrospectively recall their concerns about the development before construction, potentially introducing recall bias. The survey was, however, informed by the public consultation and the core issues raised by the local community at the time. Notably, 82% of the surrounding residents in this study had not participated in the community consultation process. Positively, this indicates we obtained a broad community perspective on the development and reached a 'silent majority' of community members who did not participate in the consultation process. This is essential to gauge the broader community experience beyond the more vocal minority
Further, studies in behavioural geography have shown that people are more likely to engage with changes in their environment that they believe will directly impact their daily lives. However, any initial resistance, anxiety, or rumination about these changes often diminishes over time as individuals become accustomed to the new environment and shift their attention to other, more immediate concerns (Montello, 2013). This pattern may help explain the changes observed in perceptions of key urban design features before and after development. It also reinforces the idea that the fear surrounding infill development may be greater than the reality of the development (Montello, 2013).
While the scale of the development and some of its unique characteristics may not be generalisable to all precinct developments, the studied infill development is indicative of many medium-higher density infill developments unfolding (or planned) across the Perth metropolitan area and is an example of what can be achieved in a suburban setting at a precinct scale. Thus, the results are important to inform the design, planning and community engagement of similar developments nationwide and in metropolitan regions globally with major public transport infrastructure and medium to high density TOD scenarios (2009, p. 23)
Moreover, previous studies have found opposition is most likely in affluent and socially homogenous areas where single-family homes and owner-occupancy predominate (Dear, 1992; Pendall, 1999), and proposed developments are likely to be the most unacceptable to host communities where they introduce physical and/or social forms that differ from established norms (Livingston et al., 2008; Takahashi & Dear, 1997). To that end, the infill development in this study was in a relatively affluent area of Perth, which may have influenced the development's design and construction quality. Nonetheless, the results are still applicable in providing an example of a comparatively wealthy community’s response to good design quality.
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development Revision A 11.03.25
7. Conclusion
Experiences of the infill projects delivered today will influence the acceptance of (or resistance to) future infill, urban consolidation, and higher-density development. According to commentators, there is an entrenched 'public sullenness' towards urban densification in suburban neighbourhoods (Kelly & Donegan, 2015) However, our results give us pause as to how endemic this resistance is The findings suggest that local opposition to planned infill development is likely to be worse than the reality once constructed, and community concerns are likely based on poorly designed and constructed infill examples and fear of change. Moreover, our survey findings show that in many cases, the community changed their perceptions of urban densification pre- and post-development and that design and construction quality can play a significant role in winning 'hearts and minds.'
The study provides evidence that evaluations of infill projects, combined with "density done well", could help demonstrate the positive outcomes associated with infill and help reassure community members and mitigate any potential concerns that infill development could be perceived to bring to local communities. More pre-post development studies and like this are crucial for identifying the aspects of higher-density infill developments that communities can accept, particularly in areas where resistance initially existed. These insights can guide future consultations with host communities, helping to address objections and are essential to help state governments meet their infill and housing targets.
To further assist this discussion, more collaborations between industry, government and academics are needed to evaluate and showcase community experiences of infill developments, which is essential in helping to promote the reasons for infill policy initiatives and communicating the benefits to the host community.
8. Acknowledgements
The project is funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Project (LP10100558) and the Western Australian Planning Commission, Development WA and the Western Australian Department of Communities.
9. References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). Population Projections, Australia (2017 -base 2066) https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-projections-australia/latestrelease
Bolleter, J. A., Myers, Z., & Hooper, P. (2021). Overcoming the barriers to Transit-Oriented Development. Australian Planner, 57(3-4), 188-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2021.2017992
Brown, B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 23(3), 259-271. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00117-2
Brunner, J., & Cozens, P. (2013). ‘Where Have All the Trees Gone?’ Urban Consolidation and the Demise of Urban Vegetation: A Case Study from Western Australia. Planning Practice & Research, 28(2), 231-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.733525
Burton, E. (2000). The Compact City: Just or Just Compact? A Preliminary Analysis. Urban Studies, 37(11), 1969-2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980050162184
Center for Transit-Oriented Development. (2004). Hidden in Plain Sight: Capturing the Demand for Housing Near Transit, Reconnecting America. C. f. T.-O. Development.
Cervero, R. (2004). TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects T. R. B. o. t. N. Academies.
Davison, G., Han, H., & Liu, E. (2017). The impacts of affordable housing development on host neighbourhoods: two Australian case studies. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 32(4), 733-753. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44983821
Davison, G., Legacy, C., Liu, E., & Darcy, M. (2016). The Factors Driving the Escalation of Community Opposition to Affordable Housing Development. Urban Policy and Research, 34(4), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2015.1118377
De Gruyter, C., Hooper, P., & Foster, S. (2023). Do apartment residents have enough car parking? An empirical assessment of car parking adequacy in Australian cities. Journal of Transport Geography, 107, 103542. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103542
Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(3), 288-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975808
Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(6), 426-441. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1004
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development Revision A 11.03.25
Dodson, J., & Gleeson, B. (2007). The Use of Density in Australian Planning. 3rd State of Australian Cities National Conference, 28-30 November 2007, Adelaide, Australia. https://apo.org.au/node/60210
Dong, H. (2021). Evaluating the impacts of transit-oriented developments (TODs) on household transportation expenditures in California. Journal of Transport Geography, 90, 102946. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102946
Downs, A. (2005). Smart Growth: Why We Discuss It More than We Do It. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 367-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976707
Einstein, K., Palmer, M., & Glick, D. (2018). Who participates in local government? Evidence from meeting minutes. Perspectives on Politics, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/s153759271800213x
Evans, G. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 80(4), 536–555
Fincher, R. (2004). Gender and Life Course in the Narratives of Melbourne's High-rise Housing Developers. Australian Geographical Studies, 42(3), 325-338. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8470.2004.00278.x
Fischel, W. A. (2001). Why Are There NIMBYs? Land Economics, 77(1), 144-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146986
Gabbe, C. J., & Pierce, G. (2017). Hidden Costs and Deadweight Losses: Bundled Parking and Residential Rents in the Metropolitan United States. Housing Policy Debate, 27(2), 217-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2016.1205647
Gibson, T. A. (2005). NIMBY and the Civic Good. City & Community, 4(4), 381-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2005.00144.x
Giles-Corti, B., Moudon, A. V., Lowe, M., Cerin, E., Boeing, G., Frumkin, H., Salvo, D., Foster, S., Kleeman, A., Bekessy, S., de Sá, T. H., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Higgs, C., Hinckson, E., Adlakha, D., Arundel, J., Liu, S., Oyeyemi, A. L., Nitvimol, K., & Sallis, J. F. (2022). What next? Expanding our view of city planning and global health, and implementing and monitoring evidenceinformed policy. The Lancet Global Health, 10(6), e919-e926. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214109X(22)00066-3
Giles-Corti, B., Vernez-Moudon, A., Reis, R., Turrell, G., Dannenberg, A. L., Badland, H., Foster, S., Lowe, M., Sallis, J. F., Stevenson, M., & Owen, N. (2016). City planning and population health: a global challenge. The Lancet, 388(10062), 2912-2924. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(16)30066-6
Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural Research methods. John Wiley and Sons.
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development
Revision A 11.03.25
Haaland, C., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 760-771. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009
Hedgcock, D., & Brunner, J. (2015). Planning intervention in metropolitan urban form: the 21stcentury challenge of urban consolidation in Australian capital cities. In J. Brunner & J. Glasson (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Australian Urban and Regional Planning (pp. 251-269). Routledge.
Hidalgo, M. C., & HernÁNdez, B. (2001). PLACE ATTACHMENT: CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL QUESTIONS. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273-281. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221
Hiscock, R., Kearns, A., McIntyre, S., and Ellaway, A. (2001). Ontological security and psychosocial benefts from the home: Qualitative evidence on issues of tenure. Housing, Theory and Society, 18, 50–55.
Hurley, J., Taylor, E., & Dodson, J. (2017). Why Has Urban Consolidation Been so Difficult? In N. Sipe & K. Vella (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Australian Urban and Regional Planning (pp. 123–135). Routledge.
Ibraeva, A., Correia, G. H. d. A., Silva, C., & Antunes, A. P. (2020). Transit-oriented development: A review of research achievements and challenges. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 110-130. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.10.018
Janianpour, P., Sahraei Nejad, N., & Kafi, M. (2023). Explanation the factors affecting revival of people-oriented passages in Urban Spaces (Case study: Kuti neighborhood of Bushehr). Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 12, 117–134
Lecovich, E. (2014). Aging in place: From theory to practice. Anthropological Notebooks, 20, 21-32.
Lewicka, M. (2005). Ways to make people active: The role of place attachment, cultural capital, and neighborhood ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4), 381–395.
Montello, Daniel R. (2013). Behavioral and Cognitive Geography. obo in Geography. doi: 10.1093/obo/9780199874002-0069
McGreevy, M., Musolino, C., & Baum, F. (2023). Will neighbourhood liveability be promoted by new housing related planning policy in Adelaide, South Australia? Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 38(2), 699-726. doi:10.1007/s10901-022-09971-z
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development
Revision A 11.03.25
Kasperson, R. E., Golding, D., & Tuler, S. (1992). Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 161-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01950.x
Kelly, J., & Donegan, P. (2015). City limits: why Australian cities are broken and how we can fix them. : . Melbourne.
Kwok, M., Johnson, L., & Pojani, D. (2018). Discretion and the erosion of community trust in planning: reflections on the post-political. Geographical Research, 56(4), 382-392. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12310
Lebrusán, I., & Gómez, M. V. (2022). The Importance of Place Attachment in the Understanding of Ageing in Place: "The Stones Know Me". Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19(24). https://doi.org/ijerph192417052
Livingston, M., Bailey, N., & Kearns, A. (2008). People's attachment to place: the influence of neighbourhood deprivation. Project Report. . C. Charterd Institute of Housing/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Manville, M. (2016). Bundled parking and vehicle ownership: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2016.730
Manville, M., & Pinski, M. (2020). Parking behaviour: Bundled parking and travel behavior in American cities. Land Use Policy, 91 , 103853. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.012
Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20 (4), 335-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412205286160
Map My Say, 2025, Paula Hooper, accessed 05 March 2025, https://www.mapmysay.com.au/
McClymont, K., & O'Hare, P. (2008). “We're not NIMBYs!” Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities. Local Environment, 13(4), 321-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830701803273
McNee, G., & Pojani, D. (2022). NIMBYism as a barrier to housing and social mix in San Francisco. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 37(1), 553-573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901021-09857-6
McGreevy, M., Musolino, C. & Baum, F. Will neighbourhood liveability be promoted by new housing related planning policy in Adelaide, South Australia?. J Hous and the Built Environ 38, 699–726 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-022-09971-z
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development
Revision A 11.03.25
National Housing Supply Council. (2010). 2nd State of Supply Report. A. Government. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/stateofsupplyreport_2010.pdf
Nematollahi, S. (2021). Social diversity in a dense neighbourhood: a socio-psychological study of community opposition to dense developments in Perth, Western Australia. Australian Planner, 57(2), 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2021.1984966
Nematollahi, S., Tiwari, R., & Hedgecock, D. (2016). Desirable Dense Neighbourhoods: An Environmental Psychological Approach for Understanding Community Resistance to Densification. Urban Policy and Research, 34(2), 132-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2015.1078233
Newton, P., & Glackin, S. (2014). Understanding Infill: Towards New Policy and Practice for Urban Regeneration in the Established Suburbs of Australia's Cities. Urban Policy and Research, 32(2), 121-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2013.877389
NSW Department of Planning and Environment. (2015). Apartment Design Guide: Tools for improving the design of residential apartment development N. D. o. P. a. Environment.
OECD. (2012). Compact City Policies https://doi.org/doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264167865-en
Opit, S., Carroll, P., & Witten, K. (2020). Community Acceptance of Medium -Density Housing Developments. M. University.
Palmer, C., Ziersch, A., Arthurson, K., & Baum, F. (2004). Challenging the Stigma of Public Housing: Preliminary Findings from a Qualitative Study in South Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), 411-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0811114042000296326
Peace, S., Holland, C., & Kellaher, L. (2011). ‘Option recognition’ in later life: variations in ageing in place. Ageing & Society, 31(5), 734-757. https://doi.org/Doi: 10.1017/s0144686x10001157
Pendall, R. (1999). Opposition to Housing:NIMBY and Beyond. Urban Affairs Review , 35(1), 112-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780879922184310
Rice, J. (2016). There goes the neighbourhood? Or saving the world? Community views about transit orientated development. In J. Renne & C. Curtis (Eds.), Transit Oriented Development: Making it happen (pp. 191-204). Routledge.
Ritchie, A. L., Svejcar, L. N., Ayre, B. M., Bolleter, J., Brace, A., Craig, M. D., Davis, B., Davis, R. A., van Etten, E. J. B., Fontaine, J. B., Fowler, W. M., Froend, R. H., Groom, C., Hardy, G. E. S. J., Hooper, P., Hopkins, A. J. M., Hughes, M., Krauss, S. L., Leopold, M., . . . Hobbs, R. J. (2021). A threatened ecological community: research advances and priorities for Banksia woodlands. Australian Journal of Botany, - https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1071/BT20089
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development Revision A 11.03.25
Robinson, J., & Attuyer, K. (2020). Contesting density: beyond nimby-ism and usual suspects in governing the future city. Urban Geography, 41(10), 1294-1301. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1860623
Rowley, S., Ong, R., & James, A. (2017). Perth's infill housing future: Delivering innovative and sustainable housing. Curtin University.
Rowley, S., & Phibbs, P. (2012). Delivering diverse and affordable housing on infill development sites, AHURI Final Report No. 193 https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/193
Ruming, K., Houston, D., & Amati, M. (2012). Multiple Suburban Publics: Rethinking Community Opposition to Consolidation in Sydney. Geographical Research, 50(4), 421-435. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2012.00751.x
Ruming, K. J. (2014). Urban consolidation, strategic planning and community opposition in Sydney, Australia: Unpacking policy knowledge and public perceptions. Land Use Policy, 39, 254-265. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.010
Samavati, S., & Veenhoven, R. (2024). Happiness in urban environments: what we know and don’t know yet. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 39(3), 1649-1707. doi:10.1007/s10901024-10119-4
Scally, C. P., & Tighe, J. R. (2015). Democracy in Action?: NIMBY as Impediment to Equitable Affordable Housing Siting. Housing Studies, 30(5), 749-769. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2015.1013093
Sivam, A., Karuppannan, S., & Davis, M. C. (2012). Stakeholders’ perception of residential density: a case study of Adelaide, Australia. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27(4), 473494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-011-9265-2
Stamps, A. E. (1998). Measures of Architectural Mass: From Vague Impressions to Definite Design Features. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(6), 825-836. https://doi.org/10.1068/b250825
Stevenson, M., Thompson, J., de Sá, T. H., Ewing, R., Mohan, D., McClure, R., Roberts, I., Tiwari, G., Giles-Corti, B., Sun, X., Wallace, M., & Woodcock, J. (2016). Land use, transport, and population health: estimating the health benefits of compact cities. The Lancet, 388(10062), 2925-2935. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30067-8
Takahashi, L. M., & Dear, M. J. (1997). The Changing Dynamics of Community Opposition to Human Service Facilities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975725
Taylor, E. (2014). “Fight the towers! Or kiss your car park goodbye”: How often do residents assert car parking rights in Melbourne planning appeals? Planning Theory & Practice, 15(3), 328-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2014.929727
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development
Revision A 11.03.25
The World Bank. (2022). Urban Development. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/overview#1
State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres for Perth and Peel, (2010). http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/activity_centres_policy_2.pdf
Western Australian Planning Commission. (2010). Directions 2031 and Beyond: Metropolitan planning beyond the horizon. W. A. P. Commission. http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/826.asp
Western Australian Planning Commission. (2018). Perth and Peel @ 3.5 million. W. A. P. Commission.
Wexler, M. N. (1996). A SOCIOLOGICAL FRAMING OF THE NIMBY (NOT-IN-MY-BACKYARD) SYNDROME. International Review of Modern Sociology, 26(1), 91-110. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41421101
Xu, Y., Luo, D., Qian, Q. K., & Chan, E. H. W. (2023). Are green buildings more liveable than conventional buildings? An examination from the perspective of occupants. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 38(2), 1047-1066. doi:10.1007/s10901-022-09983-9
The University of Western Australia uwa.edu.au
Do fears become reality? Evaluating community experiences before and after a higher density infill development Revision A 11.03.25