Ecological Footprint & Urban From

7/25/2019 Ecological Footprint & Urban From

1/20

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 19: 91109, 2004.

2004Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Ecological footprints and sustainable urban form

ERLING HOLDENWestern Norway Research Institute, P.O. Box 163, 6851 Sogndal, Norway

(E-mail: [email protected])

Abstract. This paper presents the results of a four-year research project (19972001) entitled

Housing as a basis for sustainable consumption. The overall aim was to obtain more empir-

ical and theoretical knowledge about the connection between physical urban planning and

household consumption. This knowledge provides a platform for discussing principles and

practices for sustainable urban development.

This project was based on two main assumptions. First, it was suggested that the significant

and increasing environmental damage due to private household consumption presents a majorchallenge in achieving sustainable development. Second, a large part of this consumption

appears to be influenced by our physical living situation, i.e., the way we design and locate

our houses. This also applies to energy use for heating and technical appliances, transport, and

even to the considerable amount of equipment that is needed for household operation, redecor-

ation and maintenance. With respect to transport, the study team included both everyday travel

and leisure-time journeys in this research. While everyday trips such as travelling to work,

shopping and taking the children to school are strongly influenced by the living situation of

the household, this might also be true for leisure-time travel.

Based on two large surveys in the Norwegian towns of Greater Oslo and Frde, the study

team collected data on housing-related consumption from 537 households. Ecological Foot-

printingwas then used as an analytical tool to analyse the environmental consequences of this

consumption. These ecological footprint analyses suggest that sustainable urban development

points towardsdecentralized concentration, i.e., relatively small cities with a high density and

short distances between the houses and public/private services.

Key words: decentralized concentration, ecological footprints, planning, sustainable

consumption, sustainable development, sustainable urban form

1. Introduction

This article is based on a planning research project. More specifically, it

concerns those areas of planning research that deal with increasing knowl-

edge about theeffectsof physical planning. Bjrn Re (1990) points out that

physical planning should form the basis of the decisions or measures thatform our environment and that influence human activity. One of the basic

assumptions in this article is that physical surroundings influence human

behaviour.


2/20

92 ERLING HOLDEN

The concept of sustainable development first appeared on the international

agenda around 15 years ago. The UN report entitled Our Common Future

(WCED, 1987) pointed out that mankind now faces such major problems

with respect to the depletion of natural resources, increased pollution and

poverty that somethingmustbe done. Unless action is taken to improve these

conditions, we risk destroying the planet on which we live and not simply

for the current generation; future generations, and even nature itself, are also

in the danger zone. Another basic assumption in this article is that we are now

faced with a need for change.

These two concepts, physical planning and sustainable development,

together comprise the general area of research covered in this article. While

physical planning constitutes the professional point of departure, sustain-

able development acts as the thematic boundary. However, this combination

provides the basis for a large number of researchable approaches to the matter.

Based on the more general concepts, a three-step demarcation was devised in

order to arrive at the specific area of research.The first demarcation relates to a specific aspect of sustainable develop-

ment, namely consumption. Agenda 21, which is one of several follow-up

reports to Our Common Future, states that the most important cause of

the steady deterioration in the global environment is todays non-sustainable

consumer and production patterns, especially in the industrialized countries.

However, production and consumption are closely linked, and it is impossible

to imagine the one without the other. The study team therefore chose to focus

on consumption. There are three reasons why attention should be drawn

to the consumer aspect. Firstly, environmental problems are being increas-

ingly linked to the use of products and services. It is no longer the factory

manufacturing products that necessarily presents the most serious threat tonature and the environment. Instead it is the use of these products that gives

cause for concern.1 Obviously this should not be taken to mean that it is no

longer important to focus on the environmental problems caused by industry

and manufacturers, but it represents a shift in the area of interest. Secondly,

the team recognize that, under current social conditions, consumption is the

real driving force. Non-sustainable production and consumption levels are

primarily a result of our desire to do more, experience more, see more, and,

to put it briefly, consume more. Efforts must be made on the consumer side

to lead us onto a sustainable path. Finally, the focus on consumption is based

on this articles association with physical planning and the effect that this

has on human activity. This demarcation provides the basis for a transition

from the general concept of sustainable development to the more specificterm sustainable consumption.


3/20

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM 93

The second demarcation focuses attention on a specific part of the

combined public and private consumption. Obviously all consumption can

be problematic from an environmental point of view. Nevertheless, certain

areas of consumption are more relevant than others when talking about phys-

ical planning and sustainable development. Housingis a key concept in this

context. The type of consumption that can be linked to housing and, of

course, to the people who live in these households is particularly relevant.

To put it bluntly, developments over the last decade have provided a basis for

maintaining that environmental problems have left industry and moved into

peoples homes, i.e., housing that has largely been designed and located via

physical planning.

More specifically, four consumer categories are used and referred to as

housing-related consumption. The first is energy consumption with regard to

heating and operating housing. This accounts for almost 30% of Norways

total energy consumption (Hille, 1995).2 However, housing does not just

consume energy. A substantial amount ofmaterial housing consumption isrequired in order to operate and maintain a housing unit, and this is designated

as the second consumer category. This concerns furniture and other fittings,

technical equipment and electrical appliances, equipment for maintaining

and operating indoor and outdoor areas, etc. Individually, these products do

not represent major consumption, but together they represent extremely high

consumption levels. According to Rolness (1995) just under NOK 30 billion

is spent each year on renovation and maintenance alone, with considerable

amounts being spent on miscellaneous fittings.3

Perhaps the most prominent feature of our consumer patterns during the

last decade is the huge increase that has occurred in the transport sector.

From 1951 to 1991 transport energy consumption increased almost seven-fold (Nss, 1997). The home is often the departure point for much of this

transport consumption, which includes travelling to work, day-care centres,

schools, shops and various leisure activities. These routine journeys are

referred to as everyday travel. Energy consumption relating to everyday

transportconstitutes our third consumer category.

A common feature of these three consumer categories is that they are all

obviously relevant in the context of physical planning. However, a fourth

consumer category has also been included, i.e., energy used for longer

holiday and leisure trips. This category has been added to enable investiga-

tion of whether the so-called compensation hypothesis can be confirmed.

Briefly, this hypothesis states that people who expend small amounts of

energy on everyday transport (due to certain housing attributes) undertakelonger journeys in their leisure time in order to compensate for needs that are

not fulfilled where they live. For example, someone who lives in a densely


4/20

94 ERLING HOLDEN

populated urban area with little greenery around them might travel farther

afield in their leisure time in order to reach the wide-open spaces that they

dont normally see. If such compensatory effects apply, this could have major

consequences for physical planning; e.g., what is the point of continuing to

reduce the need for everyday travel if it only results in more extensive travel

during holidays and leisure time?

The third and final demarcation concerns various aspects of physical

(urban) planning. According to Re (1990), physical planning relates to

design at all levels from overall design at a national level down to the design

of individual housing. This article deals with four specific planning factors

that describe key aspects regarding the design and localization of housing.

Physical planning can influence these planning factors, while at the same

time the planning factors affect the extent and composition of housing-related

consumption. These four planning factors are:

(1) town size/national settlement pattern;

(2) localization of houses within a town, municipality or built-up area;(3) residential area; and

(4) type of housing.

These four factors can be linked to more overriding housing planning prin-

ciples. The question of a towns size and national settlement patterns is

closely related to the question ofcentralization versus decentralization at

a national level. The localization of housing refers to the distance from the

house to the centre of town and relates to urban sprawl, while residential areas

can also be linked to a discussion about density. Obviously a residential area,

where housing is divided into densely populated and sparsely populated areas,

is not the only measure of density. In a discussion about density, additional

criteria for measuring density should therefore be included in the assessment,e.g., population density and development density. Finally, the question of

housing type deals with the ongoing debate about single-family houses as

a separate form of living, compared to more dense and concentrated forms of

development.

Furthermore, these four planning factors are closely inter-related. They

influence each other and, in the overall scheme of residential planning, it can

be difficult to consider them as clearly separate aspects.

2. Objectives and issues

This article aims to present new knowledge about the relationship that exists

between the four planning factors, on the one hand, and housing-related

consumption on the other. The issues at hand are:


5/20


Do various aspects of the design and localization of a house affect our

consumer pattern? What are the overall physical characteristics of a

living situation that has the smallest negative impact on the environ-

ment? (The term living situation is used here to express the physical

design and localization of a house. Impacts on the environment are

measured in terms of ecological footprints.)

This knowledge is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is interesting to

study the extent to which physical-structural conditions affect our actions.

Secondly, this is a form of knowledge that can be valuable for specific

physical planning. Some of the implications for planning that this revealed

knowledge implies are addressed at the end of the article. This includes a

brief discussion of the complex issue: What is sustainable urban form?

It is important to emphasize here that this article primarily provides a

snapshot of the situation in Norway at the end of the 1990s. All results must

be evaluated in the light of this transitory and spatial limitation.

3. Methodology

Theresearch plan consisted of an empirical part and a theoretical part. The

former concerned obtaining new knowledge about the relationship that exists

between housing-related consumption and the factors that affect its extent and

composition (section 4). The latter concerned incorporating the results of the

empirical research into a discussion in the light of other knowledge (section

5). This also involved a discussion as to which principles and criteria ought to

be used as a basis for the design and localization of residential areas, within

the context of sustainable development objectives.

The empirical research plan consisted of three phases, each with an

individual approach. Surveys were carried out among a large number of

households in two Norwegian cities. These surveys took the form of a ques-

tionnaire distributed by post. The aim was to obtain an idea of how housing-

related consumption varied under different living situations. Analysis of

this data would also provide an idea as to what percentage of these vari-

ations can be linked to the actual living situation, seen in relation to the

socioeconomic, sociodemographic and attitude-related characteristics of the

individuals concerned. The surveys were carried out between October and

November 1998.

Case studies4

were also included, to obtain a deeper insight into themechanisms that influence peoples consumer habits in complex everyday

situations. These studies were designed to provide an understanding of how

people experience the effects of physical-structural factors on their choice


6/20

96 ERLING HOLDEN

of consumables for their routine everyday lives and leisure time. These case

studies were primarily built up around qualitative research interviews carried

out within each household. A total of 24 case studies were undertaken during

the period April to November 1999.

Ecological footprint calculations were made in order to link consump-

tion and sustainable development. These calculations indicated which overall

living situations based on the consumer categories highlighted in this article

resulted in the least serious environmental consequences. In addition to

the data obtained from the survey, these calculations were also based on

a quantity of empirical data relating to the environmental consequences of

different types of consumption.

The focal points in these studies were the households and the types of

housing in which the respondents lived. The characteristics of the individuals

concerned were also included, to provide a supplementary or alternative

perspective.

3.1. Survey

The survey formed a basis for describing how consumption varies between

different housing types and localities. It consisted of a questionnaire sent

to households in Greater Oslo and in the western Norwegian community of

Frde. Greater Oslo, which comprises the capital Oslo and the surrounding

district, with a population totalling approximately 1 million, represents

consumption patterns and volume in a large urban context. Frde, on the other

hand, with only around 12,000 inhabitants, gives a corresponding picture

for rural conditions. The team carried out a stratified probability sample in

order to ensure an adequate number of respondents from different housing

types (single-family houses, semi-detached houses and multi-family resid-

ential buildings) and housing localities (central/suburban, sparsely/densely

developed) within each of the study areas. The distinction between urban and

rural areas was ensured by the selection of these two study areas.

The questionnaire primarily focused on surveying housing-related

consumption and other consumption (mainly consumption in connection with

holidays and leisure activities) based on physical and structural conditions

concerning the location of the house, as well as attitudes to individual, more

general environmental problems. The survey consisted of two separate forms:

one completed by the entire household as a group, and the other completed by

each individual household member over 18 years of age. Data was collected

on the following conditions:


7/20


consumer behaviour: information was collected on a broad range of

housing-related consumption with regard to conditions (directly or indir-

ectly) connected to the house. Household consumption was also studied

in connection with holidays and recreation activities;

characteristics of the each house: such as housing type, size (m2 floor

area), construction type (wood, brick, concrete) and the total size of the

plot (m2);

the physical and structural properties of the surroundings: data was

collected oninter aliaservices within walking distance (5001000 m) of

the house (shops, public offices, commercial services, etc.), the distance

to the nearest service of each type, as well as the density of buildings in

the immediate vicinity and local community;

socioeconomic and sociodemographic background data on the indi-

viduals living in the households;

environmental attitudes: e.g., attitudes to general, environmental polit-

ical issues.

Figure 1. Survey areas. Greater Oslo (Stor-Oslo), including the municipalities of Oslo,Brum, Asker, Skedsmo, Nittedal, Rlingen, Oppegrd, Ski and Lrenskog. Frde refers to

with the municipality of Frde.


8/20

98 ERLING HOLDEN

A total of 537 households completed the questionnaire. There seemed to

be a reasonable ratio between the sample and the population of each town,

regarding the physical characteristics of the houses and a broad spectrum

of socioeconomic background factors. It should, however, be mentioned that

respondents between the ages of 30 and 60 were slightly over-represented,

as were the higher-educated respondents. The number of female respondents

was also just above the actual percentage of women living in these areas.

3.2. Ecological footprints

The housing-related consumption pattern for each household was translated

into an ecological footprint for the household. Before presenting the results

of these calculations and the implications they have for planning, let us

briefly explain the history and concept of ecological footprinting as a tool

for environmental impact assessments.

The concept of ecological footprinting was developed and quantified byWilliam Rees and Mathis Wackernagel in the early 1990s as an elaboration

of the carrying capacity concept (Wackernagel and Rees, 1994). This is

a dynamic concept that was changed and improved throughout the 1990s.

Numerous books and articles on it have been published, including empirical

studies as well as theoretical and methodological publications. One of the

latest articles on ecological footprints (Wackernagel et al., 2002, published

in theProceedings of the National Academy of Science 2002), calculates the

footprint for the entire world. The concept, although still fairly immature,

is now accepted as an important part of the sustainability debate, both by

academics and politicians. Ecological footprinting is mentioned as a valu-

able analytical device (MFA, 2002) in the Norwegian National Strategy for

Sustainable Development.

So what exactly is an ecological footprint? The basic answer is that we all

need a certain amount of land area to survive and that it is possible to calculate

this area. Everything that we consume, or dump, needs an area somewhere in

the world to produce or assimilate what we use or throw away. As such, ecolo-

gical footprinting is a simple accounting tool that adds up human impacts

(or use of ecological services) in an index, in a way that is consistent with

thermodynamic and ecological principles (Chambers et al., 2000).

Ecological footprinting is certainly not the only accounting tool around.

There is a seemingly infinite number of tools on the market, including

Life Cycle Analysis, Ecological Space, Ecological Rucksack, Environmental

Impact Assessments, Factors 4 and 10, MIPS (material intensity per service)etc. Each of these tools has its advantages and shortcomings, as does ecolo-

gical footprinting. Before presenting ecological footprinting in more detail,

let us briefly examine its pros and cons.


9/20


There are five important aspects that make ecological footprint analysis a

valuable tool for sustainability analyses. First, the method is based on the

life cycle principle, which is a prerequisite for assessing environmentally

sustainable development. Second, the method focuses on consumption. One

of the main characteristics of todays environmental problems can be related

to the unsustainable consumption pattern in the richer part of the world. There

can be no doubt whatsoever that issues regarding consumption patterns and

volumes must be a central part of sustainable development. The method can

be used for consumption at any level, from an individual person up to a

country or even the whole global population. Third, the method draws up

asynthesis of a large number of different consumption categories as well as

environmental consequences in one single analysis. This makes it possible

to carry out overall comparisons, and not just limited analyses of specific

components or aspects. Fourth, ecological footprinting incorporates equity

and global justice into the analyses. Finally, the method has proven to be an

excellent tool for illustrating the challenges of sustainable development, forprofessionals as well as lay people. Ecological footprint analyses are both

educational and motivational.

However, the system has several shortcomings and limitations. First, some

consumption and emission aspects are not included in the analyses. Ecolo-

gical footprinting only includes consumption and emissions that require land

areas, in some form or another (Lewan, 2000). Important environmental

issues relating to emissions of heavy metals, persistent organic and non-

organic materials, radioactive substances etc. are therefore not included.

Second, doubts have been raised about the land area methodology, especially

the CO2 land area (Jrgensen et al., 2002). Finally, probably the most prob-

lematic aspect is the idea of aggregating many different land categories into asingle number. Under what heading can forests, arable land and built-up areas

be subsumed? So far the answer is land productivities; the productivity of

different types of land can be determined by referring to the reported yields

of various plant and animal produce. Even though this makes it possible to

summarize the different land areas, it should be considered what this actually

means. It might also be worth mentioning here that ecological footprints say

nothing about peoples quality of life, which is a completely different story

and needs to be looked at separately.

This was a brief introduction to the pros and cons of ecological foot-

printing. But how does it work? It is customary to operate with six different

land categories: cropland, grazing land, forests, fishing grounds, energy foot-

print and built-up land. Cropland includes the area needed to produce allfood (grain, fruits, vegetables, etc.) and non-food crops (cereal for animals,

cotton, etc.). The global area used as grazing land corresponds to human


10/20

100 ERLING HOLDEN

consumption of meat, dairy products and wool derived from livestock that

are not crop-fed. The forest footprintrefers to the area required to produce

forestry products, which are consumed globally, while the fishing ground

footprintrepresents the area required to produce the fish and seafood that we

consume. The built-up landfootprint comprises infrastructure for housing,

transportation and industrial production as well as hydroelectric power

installations. Finally, theenergy footprintrefers to the area required to sustain

our energy consumption. This encompasses four types of energy (fossil fuels,

biomass, nuclear power and hydropower), each with its own methodology for

calculating land area.

Ecological footprints can be used in several ways. One of the most popular

is to calculate the ecological footprint of a nation (or the entire world) and

compare this with the available biocapacity5 of that nation (or the world).

In other words: comparing the ecological footprint caused by consumption of

natural resources with the earths biological capacity to regenerate them. This

brings us directly to the very heart of sustainable development. It is clear thatthe land area is very unevenly distributed between the rich and poor nations

(which of course is well documented). An average individual in high-income

countries has an ecological footprint of 6.5 ha/year (approximately the size

of nine football fields). At the other end of the scale we find the people living

in low-income countries, with an average footprint of 0.8 ha/year (WWF,

2002).

These calculations also form the basis of another alarming issue.

According toThe Living Planet Report 2002(WWF, 2002), the global ecolo-

gical footprint covered 13.7 billion hectares in 1999, or 2.3 global hectares per

person. This demand on nature can be compared with the earths productive

capacity. Approximately 11.4 billion hectares, slightly less than a quarter ofthe earths surface, are biologically productive, harbouring the bulk of the

planets biomass production. The remaining three-quarters, including deserts,

ice caps and deep oceans, support comparatively low concentrations of

bioproductivity. Still, according to The Living Planet Report, the productive

quarter of the biosphere corresponded to an average 1.9 global hectares per

person in 1999. Therefore human consumption of natural resources that year

overshot the earths biological capacity by around 20%.

But ecological footprints can also be used in less pessimistic and sophistic-

ated ways, e.g. as a simple analytical device for comparing the environmental

consequences of two households, such as described in this article. Using

the information concerning a households housing-related consumption, the

research team simply asked: Where are the households with the lowestecological footprints?


11/20


4. Results

This section presents the results of the footprint calculations. The calcula-

tions were based on data taken from the surveys and the results are presentedaccording to the four planning factors mentioned in the introduction.6

4.1. Size is not important

Figure 2 shows the average ecological footprint per household and per house-

hold member. Once again, note that the ecological footprints calculated only

concern housing-related consumption and not the households total private

consumption. Let us look more closely at what these figures mean, starting

with the dimension ofurban size. Although it is interesting to compare the

two survey areas, caution is recommended for several reasons. Greater Oslo

and Frde are two complete living, shopping and working areas, but they are

so different (in size, extent, and perhaps also culture) that a direct comparisonmust be treated carefully.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the average ecological footprints

per household for the two areas are 1.56 ha/year (Frde) and 1.70 ha/year

(Greater Oslo). Per household member, these figures are 0.83 ha/year and

0.76 ha/year respectively. This shows that the inhabitants of the small rural

town of Frde have an ecological footprint that is 10% less than their urban

counterparts in the larger city suburb of Greater Oslo.

What causes this? Mainly differences in travel patterns.7 With regard

to daily journeys, the Greater Oslo results are favourable. Per household

member, the residents of the capital travel 60 km per week, while the corre-

sponding figure for Frdes residents is 98 km. This is mainly because car

density is greater in Frde, where 92% of households have access to a car,

compared with only 85% in Greater Oslo. However, if we look at the total

distance travelled by car throughout the year, and if we now include the

long holiday and leisure journeys, this picture is reversed. Despite less car

access, households in Greater Oslo have the greatest mobility. In fact, house-

hold members in Greater Oslo travel an average of 1,500 kilometres more

per year and travel further on privately booked air flights. This implies that

average household members in Greater Oslo use 14% more energy each year

on private transportation than their rural counterparts in Frde.

4.2. High density, less urban sprawl and less single-family housing

Figure 3 shows the ecological footprint per household member according to

residential area, distance to the city centre and different types of housing.

There can be no doubt that high density, moderate distances between houses


12/20

102 ERLING HOLDEN

Figure 2. Average ecological footprint per household in Frde and Greater Oslo. (All numbers

in hectare/year.)

and the city centre, and concentrated forms of housing are the most favourable

for reducing a households ecological footprint. There are many reasons why

dense and concentrated housing turns out positively, from an environmental

point of view. First, sparsely populated areas have a much higher percentage

of single-family (detached) houses. People living in single-family houses

have a significantly higher energy consumption as well as material housing

consumption than people in all other types of housing. Second, the houses are

generally larger in sparsely populated areas, which again influences consump-

tion patterns significantly. Finally, the percentage of households with access

to a private car is higher in sparsely populated areas. Car access is the most

important factor in influencing a households transport energy use.

Everything that has been said about densely versus sparsely populated

areas also applies to distances to the city centre. Households living near the

city centre tend to live in multi-family residential buildings or smaller houses

and have less access to their own car than those living near, or on, the urban

fringe.

One interesting point should be made, however. On average, household

income levels are generally higher for those living in densely populated areasand near the city centre than for those living in sparsely populated outlying

areas. However, in spite of this additional income, people living in the city

centre have a lower ecological footprint.


13/20


Figure 3. Average ecological footprint per household and household member in Frde and

Greater Oslo according to residential area, distance to the city centre and types of housing.

(All numbers in hectare/year.)

When it comes to types of housing, the single-family (detached) house is

a poor alternative, at least with regard to the ecological footprint. On average,

the ecological footprint per household member is almost 20% higher than for

people living in more concentrated types of housing, i.e. semi-detached or

terraced houses and multi-family residential buildings (blocks of flats).

4.3. The significance of non-physical factors of influence

The question that occurs is: Right enough, you find that physical living situ-

ation matters, but is it certain that size, density, distance and housing type are

behind these differences? Is it not possible that the differences are really due

to other conditions such as social class, income, and the composition of the

household? Or at least are they not due to a combination of these factors?

Yes, of course conditions such as income and household composition

matter. But even when such conditions are controlled for using multivariate

regression techniques, the physical/structural dimensions remain central tothe households ecological footprint. It should be underlined, however, that

we did not find unambiguous significant relations between all planning

factors and footprint size. Further investigations are therefore needed to verify


14/20

104 ERLING HOLDEN

the connections between the living situation and the ecological footprints of

the inhabitants.

Which non-physical factors play a role? The analyses show three predom-

inant factors with significant influence on the ecological footprint per house-

hold member. First and most important is the number of people living in

the house. There is an economy of scale present where the footprint can be

shared among more people. The second factor is car occupancy. Households

with access to their own cars have a significantly higher footprint than those

without. The third one is income. The income that households have at their

disposal has significance in both places.

The fact that the number of people living in the household, car occupancy

and income are important for the size of the ecological footprint comes as

no surprise to us. What is interesting in these analyses, however, is that the

planning factorsalsohave a strong influence on the households footprint.

5. What is sustainable urban form?

Let us return to our initial research question: What are the overall char-

acteristics of a living situation with the smallest negative impact on the

environment, i.e., the smallest ecological footprint? We are looking for

an environment-friendly living situation that helps reduce a households

housing-related consumption as much as possible. This is also a living situ-

ation that allows us to avoid any compensatory effects, e.g., in the form of

long holidays and leisure trips. Based on the material obtained from the

survey and the calculation of the households ecological footprints, four

attributes in the housing situation seem to produce the best results in reducingthe ecological footprint. These are:

dense and concentrated housing design;

relatively high degree of density in residential areas;

shortest possible distance to the town centre;

moderate size of location.

But what about the issue of sustainable urban form? What implications do

the norms for sustainable development have on the design and localization

of houses? According to Nss (1997), there are two competing models of

sustainable urban development. On the one side there are those who support

compact cities. The idea here is that large, dense and concentrated cities will

support the principles of sustainable development. However, on the other side,there are those who support the green city, i.e., a more open type of urban

structure, where buildings, agricultural fields and other green areas form a

sort of mosaic-like pattern.


15/20


The supporters of the compact city8 believe that this has environmental

and energy advantages, as well as social benefits. The list of advantages is

remarkably long, including a better environment, affordable public transport,

potential for improving the social mix, and a higher quality of life (see Frey,

1999, pp. 2125 for a supplementary list). However, the main justification for

the compact city is the need to promote the least energy-intensive patterns of

activity to help us cope with the issues of global warming (Frey, 1999).

But opponents insist that the case for compact cities is not proven because

this concept fails to acknowledge the poor prospects for reversing deep-seated

decentralization trends (Breheny, 1992). The list of arguments against the

compact city is even longer than that of points in its favour; the compact

city implies the rejection of suburban and semi-rural living, neglect of rural

communities, less green and open space, increased congestion, increased

segregation, and less power for making local decisions (see Frey, 1999, p. 25

for a supplementary list).

Until fairly recently there was some consensus that compact urban forms(i.e., the compact city) offered the most sustainable future (Williams et al.,

2000). Although there has always been considerable scepticism, the concept

of a compact city is so dominant that it seems inconceivable that anyone

would oppose the current tide of opinion towards promoting greater sustain-

able development and the compact city in particular (Smyth, 1996, p. 103).

In this context, it is not surprising that the move towards the compact city is

now entrenched in policy throughout Europe (Jenks et al., 1996, p. 275).

Our research also strongly supports the idea of the compact city. However,

the important aspect of urban size still needs to be considered. In the

compact city concept, two different pairs of concepts are often mixed together

without further qualification. These are centralization-decentralization andconcentration-sprawl (Hyer, 2002). The former refers to the population

patterns in larger national contexts, the latter to the development processes

within urban areas. Since the early 1960s and the advent of the car era,

urban development may be characterized as centralized sprawl. This means

centralization of the overall national population pattern, and sprawl of each

of the urban concentrations. In some cases researchers have concluded that

the concept of a compact city implies further centralization of the population

pattern and that larger cities are favourable in a sustainable urban develop-

ment (Newman and Kenworthy, 1989; CEC, 1990). Our research does not

support such claims. On the contrary, more favourable ecological footprints

result from having several smaller compact towns and cities, rather than a

few large or mega cities. This is termed decentralized concentration, andit opposes the dominating development patterns of the last decades in every

aspect (see Figure 4).


16/20

106 ERLING HOLDEN

Figure 4. Four models for sustainable urban form.

It is, however, a fact that an increasingly larger percentage of the popula-

tion both in Norway and in the rest of the world live in large cities. This is

the situation that urban planners have to face. In a modern democracy people

cannot be transferred from large cities to smaller and more compact towns and

cities. Not even in the name of sustainability. The answer to this challenge is

therefore to encourage polycentric cities, which implies dense and concen-

trated centres within the large cities. These centres should contain a variety

of housing and workplaces, as well as private and public services. It is also

vital that these polycentric cities are built on an effective and environmentally

sound public transport infrastructure that connects the different centres.

6. Conclusions and final remarks

This article shows that decentralized concentration could lead to smaller

ecological footprints of households a conclusion that seems to be enjoying

widespread support (Breheny, 1992; Bannister, 1992; Owens, 1992; Newman

and Kenworthy, 2000; Buxton, 2000; Masnavi, 2000; Hyer and Holden,

2001). This could be integrated into a policy that strengthens the existence

of smaller compact town and cities throughout the country, or into one that

encourages decentralized concentration within existing cities.

According to Breheny (1992), the concept of decentralized concentra-

tion is based on sustainable development and urban form policies such as

slowing down the decentralization process and realizing that compact cityproposals, in any extreme form, are unrealistic and undesirable. As such,

various forms of decentralized concentration, based around single cities or

group of towns, may be appropriate. Furthermore, inner cities must be reju-


17/20


venated and public transport must be improved both between and within all

towns. People-intensive activities must be developed around public transport

nodes, along the lines of the Dutch principle of the right business in the

right place. This implies that mixed use must be encouraged in cities and

zoning discouraged. Finally, urban (or regional) greening must be promoted

and combined heat and power (CHP) systems must be promoted in new and

existing developments.

Such profound changes will take a long time to achieve, as Frey (1999)

underlines. We fully concur with Breheny (1992, p. 22) that the real chal-

lenge is . . . to redesign existing urban form. Some important elements can

be changed quickly (e.g., bus routes), but other elements, such as railway

networks and commercial buildings, can only be changed infrequently.

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a research project that was implemented in coopera-

tion with the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR).

The study team are particularly indebted to the research carried out by

Ragnhild Skogheim at this institute and Karl Georg Hyer at Western Norway

Research Institute (WNRI). We are also indebted to the Research Council

of Norway and their research programme on Sustainable Production and

Consumption, which made the project possible.

Notes

1 The private car is a good example of this. Approximately 90% of the energy used by a carthroughout the total life cycle can be attributed to the use phase (i.e., driving). Only a small

portion (less than 10%) is related to the production (and possible demolition) of the car.2 Applicable to both direct and indirect energy consumption.3 We must emphasize here that, as far as the material housing consumption category is con-

cerned, we have concentrated only on the type of consumption that relates to running a house

or apartment. Material consumption, with respect to new construction and demolition work,

has not been included.4 The results of the case studies are not included in this article. However, they were a part of

the overall research plan and are therefore mentioned briefly here.5 Biocapacity (or biological capacity) refers to the total biological production capacity per

year of a biological productive space, for example inside a country. It can be expressed in

global hectares.6 The specific survey data from each of the four consumption categories will not be given

here. The data that are briefly mentioned in the text are presented fully elsewhere (Holden,

2001; Hyer and Holden, 2001).7 The average ecological footprint per household member for energy consumption in the

home and material housing consumption were both about equal for Frde and Greater Oslo.


18/20

108 ERLING HOLDEN

The differing circumstances point us in different directions but, in total, the two come out

fairly equal (Holden, 2001).8 Including CEC (1990), Jacobs (1961), Newman and Kenworthy (1989), Elkin et al. (1991),

Scherlock (1991), Enwicht (1992), McLaren (1992).

References

Bannister, D. (1992) Energy Use, Transport and Settlement Patterns. In: Sustainable Develop-

ment and Urban Form (Ed, Breheny, M.), Pion, London.

Breheny, M. (1992) Sustainable Development and Urban Form: An Introduction, In: Sustain-

able Development and Urban Form (Ed, Breheny, M.), Pion, London.

Buxton, M. (2000) Energy, Transport and Urban Form in Australia. In: Achieving Sustainable

Urban Form (Eds, Williams, K., Burton, E. and Jenks, M.), E&FN Spon, London and New

York.

CEC (1990) Green Paper on the Urban Environment. Commission of the European Com-

munities, European Commission, Brussels.Chambers, N., Simmons, C. and Wackernagel, M. (2000) Sharing Natures Interest. Ecological

Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability, Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Elkin, T., McLaren, D. and Hillman, M. (1991) Reviving the City: Towards Sustainable Urban

Development, Friends of the Earth, London.

Enwicht, D. (1992) Towards an Eco-City: Calming the Traffic, Envirobook, Sydney.

Frey, H. (1999) Designing the City. Towards a More Sustainable Form, E&FN Spon.

Hille, J. (1995) Sustainable Norway, The Project for an Alternative Future, Oslo.

Holden, E. (2001) Boligen som grunnlag for brekraftig forbruk (Housing as basis for a

sustainable consumption), Doktor ingeniravhandling (Ph.D. Dissertation), Department

of Town and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

Trondheim, p. 115.

Hyer, K.G. (2002) Analyseverkty i miljplanleggingen Verkty for mer enn festlige

anledninger? (Analytic tools in environmental planning). In: Fra miljvern til brekraftig

utvikling i kommunene. Erfaringer med Lokal Agenda 21 (From environmental protectionto sustainable development in municipalities. Experiences with Local Agenda 21) (Eds,

Aall, C., Hyer, K.G. and Lafferty, W.), Gyldendal Akademisk, Oslo.

Hyer, K.G. and Holden, E. (2001) Housing as Basis for Sustainable Consumption, Interna-

tional Journal on Sustainable Development, 4(1), 4858.

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. The Failure of Town Planning,

Random House, New York.

Jenks, M. Burton, E. and Williams, K. (Eds) (1996) The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban

Form?E&FN Spon.

Jrgensen, A.E. et al. (2002) Assessing the Ecological Footprint. A Look at the WWFs Living

Planet Report 2002, Environmental Assessment Institute, Kbenhavn.

Lewan, L. (2000) Ecologiska fotavtryck & biokapacitet verktyg fr planering och

uppfljning av hllbar utveckling i ett internationellt perspektiv (Ecological footprints

and bio-capacity tools for achieving sustainable development), The National Board

for Housing, Building and Planning in Sweden, Karlskrona / Swedish Environmental

Protection Agency, Stockholm.

McLaren, D. (1992) Compact or Dispersed? Dilution is No Solution, Built Environment,

18(4), 268284.


19/20


Masnavi, M-R. (2000) The New Millennium and the New Urban Paradigm: The Compact

City in Practice. In: Achieving Sustainable Urban Form (Eds, Williams, K., Burton, E.

and Jenks, M.), E&FN Spon, London and New York.

MFA (2002) National Strategy for Sustainable Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Oslo.Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1989) Gasoline Consumption and Cities. A Comparison of

U.S. Cities with a Global Survey, Journal of American Planning Association, 55(1), 2437.

Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (2000) Sustainable Urban Form: The Big Picture. In: Achieving

Sustainable Urban Form (Eds, Williams, K., Burton, E. and Jenks, M.), E&FN Spon,

London and New York.

Nss, P. (1997) Fysisk planlegging og energibruk (Physical Planning and Energy Use), Tano

Aschehoug, Oslo.

Owens, S. (1992) Energy, Environmental Sustainability and Land Use Planning. In: Sustain-

able Development and Urban Form (Ed, Breheny, M.J.), Pion Limited, London.

Rolness, K. (1995) Med smak skal hjemmet bygges (The home should be built with taste),

Aschehoug, Oslo.

Re, B. (1990) Fysisk planlegging faglig innhold og utfordringer konsekvenser for utdan-

ningen (Physical planning content and challenges consequences for education). Forum

for utdanning i Samfunnsplanlegging. Konferanse 1213 Juni 1990, Norges Tekniske

Hgskole, Trondheim (The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim).

Scherlock, H. (1991) Cities are Good for Us, Paladin, London.

Smyth, H. (1996) Running the Gauntlet: A Compact City within a Doughnut of Decay. In:

The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? (Eds, Jenks, M., Burton, E. and Williams,

K.), E&FN Spon.

Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1994) Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying

Capacity, Island Press.

Wackernagel, M. et al. (2002) Tracking the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy,

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, pp. 16.

WCED (1987) Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and Develop-

ment, Oxford University Press.

Williams, K., Burton, E. and Jenks, M. (Eds) (2000) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form,

E&FN Spon, London and New York.WWF (2002) Living Planet Report 2002, World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.


20/20

Ecological Footprint & Urban From

Documents

Transcript of Ecological Footprint & Urban From