Urban Areas and Management – Residential Zonation (Cambridge IGCSE/A‑Level Geography)
1. Learning Objectives (AO1)
- Describe the processes that create different residential zones.
- Explain the factors that control the spatial distribution of housing.
- Analyse how residential zones interact with wider urban‑growth, hierarchy and sustainability issues.
- Evaluate policies and management strategies aimed at making residential development more sustainable.
2. Key‑Concept Checklist (AO1 & AO2)
| Concept | Where it is addressed |
|---|
| Scale (neighbourhood → metropolitan region) | Sections 4‑6 (tables of zones) |
| Change over time (historic expansion, post‑2000 redevelopment) | Section 3 (Urban growth) & Section 8 (Case studies) |
| Place & spatial variation | Section 5 (Factors shaping zonation) |
| Cause‑effect & systems (land‑value, transport, policy, physical constraints) | Section 5 & 7 (Sustainable development) |
| Environmental interactions (flood‑plain, seismic, green‑belt) | Section 5 & 7 (Physical constraints, sustainability) |
| Diversity & equality (socio‑economic segregation, informal settlements) | Section 6 (Typical zones) & 9 (Misconceptions) |
| Challenges & opportunities (affordability, carbon emissions, green‑space) | Section 7 (Sustainable development) |
3. Urban Growth – Why Cities Expand (Topic 6.1)
- Demographic drivers: natural increase and rural‑to‑urban migration (scale: national → city).
- Economic drivers: industrialisation, service‑sector growth, foreign direct investment.
- Policy & planning drivers: housing‑target programmes, infrastructure corridors, Special Economic Zones.
- Urban hierarchy:
- Primate city (e.g., Bangkok) – dominates national economy.
- World‑city system (e.g., London, New York) – acts as a growth pole.
- Link to key concepts: demonstrates *scale* (global to local), *change over time* (historical to post‑2000), and *cause‑effect* (drivers → expansion).
4. Urban Structure & Change (Topic 6.2)
Urban land‑use zones are inter‑related. The diagrammatic models (Concentric‑zone, Sector, Multiple‑Nuclei) are useful, but the table below summarises the zones most relevant to residential zonation.
| Zone |
Primary Function |
Typical Location (relative to CBD) |
Key Interaction with Residential Zones |
| Central Business District (CBD) |
Finance, corporate HQs, high‑rise retail |
0–2 km |
Inner‑city residential supplies the workforce; high land values push housing outward. |
| Secondary Centre (Polycentric node) |
Regional office, retail & light‑industrial hub |
5–15 km from main CBD (varies) |
Creates a local peak in the land‑value gradient; attracts higher‑density housing and mixed‑use development. |
| Commercial & Retail |
Shops, leisure, offices |
Often contiguous with CBD, extending into inner suburbs |
Mixed‑use buildings raise residential density near the centre. |
| Industrial & Logistics |
Manufacturing, warehousing, transport hubs |
CBD fringe → outer suburbs |
Proximity to jobs encourages low‑cost housing and, in some cities, informal settlements. |
| Residential |
Housing of varying density and tenure |
From CBD fringe to exurban fringe |
Interacts with all other zones via commuting, service demand and land‑use conflict. |
| Green‑belt / Open Space |
Agriculture, recreation, flood‑plain protection |
Beyond the urban fringe (often 20–30 km) |
Constrains outward growth; may trigger “leap‑frog” development and exurban estates. |
5. Factors Shaping Residential Zonation (Topic 6.2)
- Land‑value and rent gradients – typically decline with distance from the CBD (inverse‑U pattern in polycentric cities). A secondary centre can raise land values locally by 30‑50 % compared with surrounding suburbs.
- Transport accessibility – proximity to motorways, rail stations or BRT corridors encourages higher‑density development. Example: Hong Kong’s MTR‑linked “Transit‑Oriented Development” estates have densities of 45 units ha⁻¹ versus 12 units ha⁻¹ in car‑dependent suburbs.
- Socio‑economic status – wealthier households afford larger detached homes further from the centre; lower‑income groups concentrate where rents are cheapest.
- Physical constraints – flood‑plains (e.g., 1‑m rise in flood risk can increase construction costs by 10‑15 %), steep slopes, protected wetlands and seismic zones limit where housing can be built.
- Planning policies – zoning ordinances, green‑belt limits, housing‑target policies, and private‑sector masterplans (e.g., gated‑community schemes) direct the pattern of development.
6. Typical Residential Zones
| Zone |
Location (relative to CBD) |
Typical Housing Types |
Key Characteristics |
| Inner‑city (Central) Residential |
0–2 km |
Flats, tenements, mixed‑use blocks |
High density, high rent, diverse population, older stock, excellent public‑transport links. |
| Inner Suburb |
2–8 km |
Terraced houses, semi‑detached, low‑rise apartments |
Medium density, moderate rent, growing car ownership, good local amenities. |
| Outer Suburb (Commuter Belt) |
8–20 km |
Detached houses, larger gardens, gated estates |
Low density, higher home‑ownership, reliance on private transport, higher socio‑economic status. |
| Exurban / Rural Residential |
>20 km, often beyond the urban fringe |
Large detached houses, farmhouses, holiday homes |
Very low density, mixed land‑use (agri + housing), limited services, “leap‑frog” development. |
| Informal Settlements / Slums |
Peri‑urban edges or inner‑city margins |
Self‑built shacks, temporary structures |
Overcrowding, inadequate services, low land value, high hazard vulnerability (e.g., 70 % lack safe water). |
| Gated Communities / Privately Planned Estates |
Outer suburbs or exurban zones |
Uniform detached houses, villas, townhouses |
Secure access, high‑quality infrastructure, marketed to affluent groups; can reinforce social segregation. |
7. Sustainable Urban Development (Topic 6.3)
Four sustainability pillars (as expected by the syllabus):
- Environmental* – carbon emissions, flood‑risk management, green‑space provision.
- Social* – housing affordability, equity, health and safety.
- Economic* – cost‑effectiveness of infrastructure, job creation.
- Political/Institutional* – governance, community participation, policy coherence.
Measuring sustainability (exam‑relevant terminology):
- Carbon‑footprint (kg CO₂ per household per year).
- Livability index (access to services, green space per capita).
- Housing affordability ratio (median house price ÷ median household income).
- Resilience score (percentage of housing outside flood‑plain, seismic‑design compliance).
Typical Management Strategies (AO3)
- Compact‑city policies – higher‑density housing near transit (e.g., London’s “Metro‑Growth” zones). Evaluation points: reduces car use, but may raise rents and risk gentrification.
- Green‑infrastructure & blue‑space integration – parks, river corridors, flood‑resilient design in new estates. Evaluation points: improves ecosystem services; higher upfront cost.
- Congestion charging / low‑emission zones – discourages private car use in inner suburbs. Evaluation points: cuts emissions, generates revenue; can disadvantage low‑income commuters.
- Upgrading informal settlements – participatory upgrading, basic services, tenure regularisation. Evaluation points: improves health and security; requires long‑term funding and strong governance.
- Incentivising Transit‑Oriented Development (TOD) – higher floor‑area ratios near rail stations, reduced parking provision. Evaluation points: creates mixed‑use, high‑density neighbourhoods; success depends on reliable public transport.
8. Case Studies – Contrasting Contexts
8.1 London Docklands Regeneration (High‑income, Global‑North)
- Drivers: deindustrialisation, large brownfield sites, London Docklands Development Corporation (1990s‑2020s).
- Processes: high‑rise apartments (inner‑city residential), mixed‑use towers, luxury gated estates (Canary Wharf), new DLR & Jubilee Line stations.
- Outcomes: land‑value gradient shifted eastward (property values +50 % within 5 km of Canary Wharf), creation of a secondary CBD, increased employment, but marked socio‑economic segregation.
- Evaluation (AO3): Economic regeneration vs. social exclusion; high public‑transport provision vs. affordability pressures.
8.2 Kibera Informal Settlement, Nairobi (Low‑income, Global‑South)
- Drivers: rapid rural‑to‑urban migration, limited formal housing supply, high land‑value pressure in central Nairobi.
- Processes: self‑built shacks on marginal land, limited access to water & sanitation, frequent flood events (annual flood risk >30 %).
- Outcomes: extremely high population density (≈ 80 000 people km⁻²), low rent (≈ US $30 month⁻¹), health hazards, informal economies.
- Management response: Nairobi City County’s “Kibera Slum Upgrading Programme” – participatory upgrading, provision of piped water, community toilets, and tenure regularisation.
- Evaluation (AO3): Improves living standards and reduces flood risk, but faces funding gaps and occasional displacement of vulnerable households.
9. Common Misconceptions (Sidebar)
- “Land‑value always falls with distance from the CBD.” – Polycentric cities create local peaks around secondary centres.
- “All suburbs are low‑density.” – Transit‑Oriented Developments can reach 45 units ha⁻¹.
- “Gated communities only exist in the Global South.” – They are common in affluent suburbs of London, Los Angeles, Sydney, etc.
- “Informal settlements are only on city edges.” – Many arise within inner‑city zones where land is cheap but services are lacking.
10. Key Analytical & Evaluation Questions (AO2 & AO3)
- How do land‑value gradients and transport accessibility interact to determine the location of gated communities?
- In what ways can physical constraints (e.g., flood‑plains, steep slopes) modify the typical concentric pattern of residential zones?
- Assess the social and environmental implications of expanding low‑density exurban housing on urban cohesion and sustainability.
- Compare the effectiveness of compact‑city policies with gated‑community development in delivering affordable housing.
- Using the two case studies, evaluate how different income‑group contexts influence the success of residential‑zone management strategies.
11. Illustrative Diagram (Suggested Sketch)
Draw a concentric‑zone model (inner‑city residential → inner suburb → commuter belt → exurban) and overlay a secondary centre (e.g., Canary Wharf) to show an inverse‑U land‑value pattern. Include a small inset of a TOD cluster near a rail station to illustrate higher density.
12. Typical Examination Questions (Paper 2)
- Explain how land‑value gradients influence the location of different residential zones. (AO1 & AO2)
- Using a diagram, compare the concentric‑zone model with the sector model in terms of residential distribution. (AO1 & AO2)
- Discuss the social and environmental implications of the growth of gated communities on urban cohesion. (AO2 & AO3)
- Evaluate two strategies that cities have used to make residential development more sustainable. (AO3)
- Analyse the role of physical constraints in shaping residential patterns in a city of your choice, using quantitative data where possible. (AO2 & AO3)
13. Summary (AO1)
- Residential zones follow a pattern shaped by land‑value, transport, socio‑economic status, physical constraints and planning policy.
- Urban growth, hierarchy (primate vs. polycentric) and sustainability pressures modify this pattern, producing variations such as secondary‑centre peaks, gated estates, and informal settlements.
- Understanding these processes equips geographers to analyse housing policy, evaluate development strategies and assess social inequality across different global contexts.