‘This is a wonderful book that should be on the desk of every architect and planner. It shows how

How is the dominant approach to urban sustainability ‘linear’?
The term ‘linear’ here refers to the way that urban studies often make causal, sequential links from one 
factor to another. Cities are complex systems requiring a whole systems perspective – one integrated 
with the regional ecological context.
6
We need to consider the effects of increased residential density 
on the other multiple-use values of cities, including biodiversity, ecosystem services, a sense of place 
and community identity.
7
By proceeding in an iterative but specific goal-oriented approach (eg 
increasing density), linear analysis can lose sight of important elements down the track, such as access 
to food, energy and water [Box 10]. For instance, because reduced car travel corresponds loosely with 
compact urban form, it is generally assumed that increasing residential density will automatically 
increase urban sustainability, so we proceed down that track. But there are too many intervening 
variables and contextual factors to make a direct link between increased residential density and 
sustainability. Thus, even when the goal is ‘sustainability’, the term is often evoked to justify non-
sustainable development that actually increases social, economic and environmental problems. We 
have seen that, where more urban infill development is desirable, such infill is often poorly conceived 
from a whole systems standpoint [Box 12]. Infill often increases total material flows, creates private 
enclaves, and reduces the ecological base and urban amenities. A view that marginalizes the 
ecology
is simply not a whole systems view, and does not address the nature of complex problems.
Do eco-logical design ‘outcomes’ differ from linear-reductionist outcomes?
So far design, like other fields, has been influenced by the dominant linear-reductionist paradigm.
Nonetheless, in design the whole is always bigger than the sum of the parts. Arguably, design is 
inherently better suited to deal with complexity. A design approach tries to create synergies among all 
legitimate needs and issues, and to create positive multiplier effects [Box 2]. Design could therefore be 
seen as the ‘opposite’ of the dominant linear-reductionist mode. The latter focuses on a key element 
(like energy reduction) and works systematically and iteratively in a conveyor-belt fashion. Ideally, 
however, urban design and architecture aims for:
•
A synthesis of many different kinds of physical elements (spaces, structures, materials, forms,
etc)
• 
An improvement of contextual factors through each development (social, economic,
ecological, functional, cultural, etc)
• 
The achievement of the widest range of objectives to add value to the environment, society
and economy

---

46
Positive Development
In other words, design means blending a wide combination of ingredients to achieve many different 
objectives at once. Linear-reductionist choices tend to impose a particular solution that future 
generations will have to adapt to. Eco-logical 
design
outcomes would be adaptable and reversible, 
and keep future options open. The fact that dominant approaches to planning, urban design and 
architecture have sometimes been theorized and practised in a linear-reductionist manner does not 
reflect on their 
potential
as problem-solving and opportunity-creating processes.