Conflict and Coordination Pathways Between Environmental Sustainability and Social Equity in Public Facilities of High- Density Cities: The Case of Denmark’s Dokk1 Library

Authors

  • Xinke Wu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61173/g57z6704

Keywords:

High-density Cities, Public Facilities, Environmental Sustainability, Green Gentrification, Social Equity

Abstract

Amid intertwined global urbanization and climate change, Copenhagen’s Dokk1 Library exemplifies how highdensity cities’ public facilities pursue dual environmental- social value, revealing its transition challenges. This paper employs a combined approach of literature analysis and case study methodology, grounded in relevant theoretical frameworks. It scrutinizes the design philosophy, operational model, and urban context of Copenhagen’s Dokk1 Library, aiming to reveal its effectiveness, contradictions, and integration strategies in achieving dual environmental and social objectives. Research indicates that while Dokk1 successfully integrates green technology with vibrant public spaces at the building level, it faces the risk of being regarded as a symbol of gentrification in the broader urban context. This reflects the pervasive latent issue of “unintended social exclusion” within sustainable practices. This phenomenon illustrates that outstanding architectural design alone does not automatically ensure social equity. Without forward-looking policy interventions to curb gentrification, environmentally sustainable outcomes may paradoxically erode the authenticity and inclusiveness of existing communities. Consequently, the true value of green public facilities in high-density cities lies not merely in technological sophistication, but in their capacity to serve as institutional anchors for advancing and sustaining spatial justice – a universal challenge confronting global urban sustainability transitions.

References

[1] MELISSA CHECKER.(2011). Wiped Out by the “Greenwave”: Environmental Gentrification and the Paradoxical Politics of Urban Sustainability. City & Society, 23(2), 210-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1548-744X.2011.01063.X.

[2] Svanhild Aabø & Ragnar Audunson.(2012).Use of library space and the library as place.Library and Information Science Research, 34(2), 138-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.lisr.2011.06.002.

[3] Umberto Berardi.(2011).Beyond Sustainability Assessment Systems: Upgrading Topics by Enlarging The Scale of Assessment.International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development,2(4),276-282.https://doi. org/10.5390/SUSB.2011.2.4.276.

[4] Anonymous.(2009).Research and Markets: Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Sustainable Design Methods for Architects, 3rd Edition Is the Essential Resource for Architects and Students.M2 Presswire,

[5] Yang Gail & Sun Lu. (2018). Humanized Cities: The Dean&Francis ISSN 2959-6149 Experience and Insights from Copenhagen - Interview with Yang Gail. Beijing Planning and Construction,(03),186-196.https:// doi.org/CNKI:SUN:GHJS.0.2018-03-041.

[6] Susan S Fainstein.(2025). Book review: Co-Crafting the Just City: Tales from the Field by a Planning Scholar Turned Mayor. Planning Theory, 24(2), 193-195. https://doi. org/10.1177/14730952241232628.

[7] Willems Jannes J., Molenveld Astrid, Voorberg William & Brinkman Geert.(2020). Diverging Ambitions and Instruments for Citizen Participation across Different Stages in Green Infrastructure Projects. Urban Planning, 5(1), 22-22. https://doi. org/10.17645/up.v5i1.2613.

[8] Emily Talen.(2003). Measuring Urbanism: Issues in Smart Growth Research. Journal of Urban Design, 8(3), 303-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357480032000155141.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-19