Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 19: 91–109, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer 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: erling.holden@vestforsk.no)

Abstract. This paper presents the results of a four-year research project (1997–2001) 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 andhousehold consumption. This knowledge provides a platform for discussing principles andpractices for sustainable urban development.

This project was based on two main assumptions. First, it was suggested that the significantand increasing environmental damage due to private household consumption presents a majorchallenge in achieving sustainable development. Second, a large part of this consumptionappears to be influenced by our physical living situation, i.e., the way we design and locateour houses. This also applies to energy use for heating and technical appliances, transport, andeven 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 traveland 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 ofthe household, this might also be true for leisure-time travel.

Based on two large surveys in the Norwegian towns of Greater Oslo and Førde, the studyteam collected data on housing-related consumption from 537 households. Ecological Foot-printing was then used as an analytical tool to analyse the environmental consequences of thisconsumption. These ecological footprint analyses suggest that sustainable urban developmentpoints towards decentralized concentration, i.e., relatively small cities with a high density andshort distances between the houses and public/private services.

Key words: decentralized concentration, ecological footprints, planning, sustainableconsumption, sustainable development, sustainable urban form

1. Introduction

This article is based on a planning research project. More specifically, itconcerns those areas of planning research that deal with increasing knowl-edge about the effects of physical planning. Bjørn Røe (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 basicassumptions in this article is that physical surroundings influence humanbehaviour.

92 ERLING HOLDEN

The concept of sustainable development first appeared on the internationalagenda around 15 years ago. The UN report entitled Our Common Future(WCED, 1987) pointed out that mankind now faces such major problemswith respect to the depletion of natural resources, increased pollution andpoverty that something must be done. Unless action is taken to improve theseconditions, we risk destroying the planet on which we live – and not simplyfor the current generation; future generations, and even nature itself, are alsoin the danger zone. Another basic assumption in this article is that we are nowfaced with a need for change.

These two concepts, physical planning and sustainable development,together comprise the general area of research covered in this article. Whilephysical planning constitutes the professional point of departure, sustain-able development acts as the thematic boundary. However, this combinationprovides the basis for a large number of researchable approaches to the matter.Based on the more general concepts, a three-step demarcation was devised inorder 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-upreports to Our Common Future, states that “the most important cause ofthe steady deterioration in the global environment is today’s non-sustainableconsumer and production patterns, especially in the industrialized countries”.However, production and consumption are closely linked, and it is impossibleto imagine the one without the other. The study team therefore chose to focuson consumption. There are three reasons why attention should be drawnto the consumer aspect. Firstly, environmental problems are being increas-ingly linked to the use of products and services. It is no longer the factorymanufacturing products that necessarily presents the most serious threat tonature and the environment. Instead it is the use of these products that givescause for concern.1 Obviously this should not be taken to mean that it is nolonger important to focus on the environmental problems caused by industryand manufacturers, but it represents a shift in the area of interest. Secondly,the team recognize that, under current social conditions, consumption is thereal driving force. Non-sustainable production and consumption levels areprimarily 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 sideto lead us onto a sustainable path. Finally, the focus on consumption is basedon this article’s association with physical planning and the effect that thishas on human activity. This demarcation provides the basis for a transitionfrom the general concept of sustainable development to the more specificterm sustainable consumption.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM 93

The second demarcation focuses attention on a specific part of thecombined public and private consumption. Obviously all consumption canbe problematic from an environmental point of view. Nevertheless, certainareas of consumption are more relevant than others when talking about phys-ical planning and sustainable development. Housing is a key concept in thiscontext. The type of consumption that can be linked to housing – and, ofcourse, to the people who live in these households – is particularly relevant.To put it bluntly, developments over the last decade have provided a basis formaintaining that environmental problems have left industry and moved intopeople’s homes, i.e., housing that has largely been designed and located viaphysical planning.

More specifically, four consumer categories are used and referred to ashousing-related consumption. The first is energy consumption with regard toheating and operating housing. This accounts for almost 30% of Norway’stotal energy consumption (Hille, 1995).2 However, housing does not justconsume energy. A substantial amount of material housing consumption isrequired in order to operate and maintain a housing unit, and this is designatedas the second consumer category. This concerns furniture and other fittings,technical equipment and electrical appliances, equipment for maintainingand operating indoor and outdoor areas, etc. Individually, these products donot represent major consumption, but together they represent extremely highconsumption levels. According to Rolness (1995) just under NOK 30 billionis spent each year on renovation and maintenance alone, with considerableamounts being spent on miscellaneous fittings.3

Perhaps the most prominent feature of our consumer patterns during thelast decade is the huge increase that has occurred in the transport sector.From 1951 to 1991 transport energy consumption increased almost seven-fold (Næss, 1997). The home is often the departure point for much of thistransport consumption, which includes travelling to work, day-care centres,schools, shops and various leisure activities. These routine journeys arereferred to as ‘everyday travel’. Energy consumption relating to everydaytransport constitutes our third consumer category.

A common feature of these three consumer categories is that they are allobviously relevant in the context of physical planning. However, a fourthconsumer category has also been included, i.e., energy used for longerholiday 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 ofenergy on everyday transport (due to certain housing attributes) undertakelonger journeys in their leisure time in order to compensate for needs that arenot fulfilled where they live. For example, someone who lives in a densely

94 ERLING HOLDEN

populated urban area with little greenery around them might travel fartherafield in their leisure time in order to reach the wide-open spaces that theydon’t normally see. If such compensatory effects apply, this could have majorconsequences for physical planning; e.g., what is the point of continuing toreduce the need for everyday travel if it only results in more extensive travelduring holidays and leisure time?

The third and final demarcation concerns various aspects of physical(urban) planning. According to Røe (1990), physical planning relates todesign at all levels – from overall design at a national level down to the designof individual housing. This article deals with four specific planning factorsthat describe key aspects regarding the design and localization of housing.Physical planning can influence these planning factors, while at the sametime the planning factors affect the extent and composition of housing-relatedconsumption. 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 town’s size and national settlement patterns isclosely related to the question of centralization versus decentralization ata national level. The localization of housing refers to the distance from thehouse to the centre of town and relates to urban sprawl, while residential areascan 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, additionalcriteria for measuring density should therefore be included in the assessment,e.g., population density and development density. Finally, the question ofhousing type deals with the ongoing debate about single-family houses asa separate form of living, compared to more dense and concentrated forms ofdevelopment.

Furthermore, these four planning factors are closely inter-related. Theyinfluence each other and, in the overall scheme of residential planning, it canbe difficult to consider them as clearly separate aspects.

2. Objectives and issues

This article aims to present new knowledge about the relationship that existsbetween the four planning factors, on the one hand, and housing-relatedconsumption on the other. The issues at hand are:

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM 95

Do various aspects of the design and localization of a house affect ourconsumer pattern? What are the overall physical characteristics of aliving situation that has the smallest negative impact on the environ-ment? (The term ‘living situation’ is used here to express the physicaldesign and localization of a house. Impacts on the environment aremeasured in terms of ecological footprints.)

This knowledge is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is interesting tostudy the extent to which physical-structural conditions affect our actions.Secondly, this is a form of knowledge that can be valuable for specificphysical planning. Some of the implications for planning that this revealedknowledge implies are addressed at the end of the article. This includes abrief discussion of the complex issue: What is sustainable urban form?

It is important to emphasize here that this article primarily provides asnapshot of the situation in Norway at the end of the 1990s. All results mustbe evaluated in the light of this transitory and spatial limitation.

3. Methodology

The research plan consisted of an empirical part and a theoretical part. Theformer concerned obtaining new knowledge about the relationship that existsbetween housing-related consumption and the factors that affect its extent andcomposition (section 4). The latter concerned incorporating the results of theempirical research into a discussion in the light of other knowledge (section5). This also involved a discussion as to which principles and criteria ought tobe used as a basis for the design and localization of residential areas, withinthe context of sustainable development objectives.

The empirical research plan consisted of three phases, each with anindividual approach. Surveys were carried out among a large number ofhouseholds 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 ofthis 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 thesocioeconomic, sociodemographic and attitude-related characteristics of theindividuals concerned. The surveys were carried out between October andNovember 1998.

Case studies4 were also included, to obtain a deeper insight into themechanisms that influence people’s consumer habits in complex everydaysituations. These studies were designed to provide an understanding of howpeople experience the effects of physical-structural factors on their choice

96 ERLING HOLDEN

of consumables for their routine everyday lives and leisure time. These casestudies were primarily built up around qualitative research interviews carriedout within each household. A total of 24 case studies were undertaken duringthe period April to November 1999.

Ecological ‘footprint’ calculations were made in order to link consump-tion and sustainable development. These calculations indicated which overallliving situations – based on the consumer categories highlighted in this article– resulted in the least serious environmental consequences. In addition tothe data obtained from the survey, these calculations were also based ona quantity of empirical data relating to the environmental consequences ofdifferent types of consumption.

The focal points in these studies were the households and the types ofhousing in which the respondents lived. The characteristics of the individualsconcerned were also included, to provide a supplementary or alternativeperspective.

3.1. Survey

The survey formed a basis for describing how consumption varies betweendifferent housing types and localities. It consisted of a questionnaire sentto households in Greater Oslo and in the western Norwegian community ofFørde. Greater Oslo, which comprises the capital Oslo and the surroundingdistrict, with a population totalling approximately 1 million, representsconsumption patterns and volume in a large urban context. Førde, on the otherhand, with only around 12,000 inhabitants, gives a corresponding picturefor rural conditions. The team carried out a stratified probability sample inorder to ensure an adequate number of respondents from different housingtypes (single-family houses, semi-detached houses and multi-family resid-ential buildings) and housing localities (central/suburban, sparsely/denselydeveloped) within each of the study areas. The distinction between urban andrural areas was ensured by the selection of these two study areas.

The questionnaire primarily focused on surveying housing-relatedconsumption and other consumption (mainly consumption in connection withholidays and leisure activities) based on physical and structural conditionsconcerning the location of the house, as well as attitudes to individual, moregeneral environmental problems. The survey consisted of two separate forms:one completed by the entire household as a group, and the other completed byeach individual household member over 18 years of age. Data was collectedon the following conditions:

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM 97

• consumer behaviour: information was collected on a broad range ofhousing-related consumption with regard to conditions (directly or indir-ectly) connected to the house. Household consumption was also studiedin connection with holidays and recreation activities;

• characteristics of the each house: such as housing type, size (m2 floorarea), construction type (wood, brick, concrete) and the total size of theplot (m2);

• the physical and structural properties of the surroundings: data wascollected on inter alia services within walking distance (500–1000 m) ofthe house (shops, public offices, commercial services, etc.), the distanceto the nearest service of each type, as well as the density of buildings inthe 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,Bærum, Asker, Skedsmo, Nittedal, Rælingen, Oppegård, Ski and Lørenskog. Førde refers towith the municipality of Førde.

98 ERLING HOLDEN

A total of 537 households completed the questionnaire. There seemed tobe a reasonable ratio between the sample and the population of each town,regarding the physical characteristics of the houses and a broad spectrumof socioeconomic background factors. It should, however, be mentioned thatrespondents between the ages of 30 and 60 were slightly over-represented,as were the higher-educated respondents. The number of female respondentswas 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 resultsof these calculations and the implications they have for planning, let usbriefly explain the history and concept of ecological footprinting as a toolfor environmental impact assessments.

The concept of ecological footprinting was developed and quantified byWilliam Rees and Mathis Wackernagel in the early 1990s as an elaborationof the ‘carrying capacity’ concept (Wackernagel and Rees, 1994). This isa dynamic concept that was changed and improved throughout the 1990s.Numerous books and articles on it have been published, including empiricalstudies as well as theoretical and methodological publications. One of thelatest articles on ecological footprints (Wackernagel et al., 2002, publishedin the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 2002), calculates thefootprint for the entire world. The concept, although still fairly immature,is now accepted as an important part of the sustainability debate, both byacademics and politicians. Ecological footprinting is mentioned as a valu-able analytical device (MFA, 2002) in the Norwegian National Strategy forSustainable Development.

So what exactly is an ecological footprint? The basic answer is that we allneed a certain amount of land area to survive and that it is possible to calculatethis area. Everything that we consume, or dump, needs an area somewhere inthe 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 withthermodynamic 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, includingLife Cycle Analysis, Ecological Space, Ecological Rucksack, EnvironmentalImpact 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.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM 99

There are five important aspects that make ecological footprint analysis avaluable tool for sustainability analyses. First, the method is based on thelife cycle principle, which is a prerequisite for assessing environmentallysustainable development. Second, the method focuses on consumption. Oneof the main characteristics of today’s environmental problems can be relatedto the unsustainable consumption pattern in the richer part of the world. Therecan be no doubt whatsoever that issues regarding consumption patterns andvolumes must be a central part of sustainable development. The method canbe used for consumption at any level, from an individual person up to acountry or even the whole global population. Third, the method draws upa synthesis of a large number of different consumption categories as well asenvironmental consequences in one single analysis. This makes it possibleto carry out overall comparisons, and not just limited analyses of specificcomponents or aspects. Fourth, ecological footprinting incorporates equityand global justice into the analyses. Finally, the method has proven to be anexcellent tool for illustrating the challenges of sustainable development, forprofessionals as well as lay people. Ecological footprint analyses are botheducational and motivational.

However, the system has several shortcomings and limitations. First, someconsumption and emission aspects are not included in the analyses. Ecolo-gical footprinting only includes consumption and emissions that require landareas, in some form or another (Lewan, 2000). Important environmentalissues 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, especiallythe CO2 land area (Jørgensen 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 areasbe subsumed? So far the answer is ‘land productivities’; the productivity ofdifferent types of land can be determined by referring to the reported yieldsof various plant and animal produce. Even though this makes it possible tosummarize the different land areas, it should be considered what this actuallymeans. It might also be worth mentioning here that ecological footprints saynothing about people’s quality of life, which is a completely different storyand 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 differentland 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

100 ERLING HOLDEN

consumption of meat, dairy products and wool derived from livestock thatare not crop-fed. The forest footprint refers to the area required to produceforestry products, which are consumed globally, while the fishing groundfootprint represents the area required to produce the fish and seafood that weconsume. The built-up land footprint comprises infrastructure for housing,transportation and industrial production as well as hydroelectric powerinstallations. Finally, the energy footprint refers to the area required to sustainour energy consumption. This encompasses four types of energy (fossil fuels,biomass, nuclear power and hydropower), each with its own methodology forcalculating land area.

Ecological footprints can be used in several ways. One of the most popularis to calculate the ecological footprint of a nation (or the entire world) andcompare this with the available biocapacity5 of that nation (or the world).In other words: comparing the ecological footprint caused by consumption ofnatural resources with the earth’s biological capacity to regenerate them. Thisbrings 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-incomecountries’ has an ecological footprint of 6.5 ha/year (approximately the sizeof nine football fields). At the other end of the scale we find the people livingin ‘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 to The Living Planet Report 2002 (WWF, 2002), the global ecolo-gical footprint covered 13.7 billion hectares in 1999, or 2.3 global hectares perperson. This demand on nature can be compared with the earth’s productivecapacity. Approximately 11.4 billion hectares, slightly less than a quarter ofthe earth’s surface, are biologically productive, harbouring the bulk of theplanet’s biomass production. The remaining three-quarters, including deserts,ice caps and deep oceans, support comparatively low concentrations ofbioproductivity. Still, according to The Living Planet Report, the productivequarter of the biosphere corresponded to an average 1.9 global hectares perperson in 1999. Therefore human consumption of natural resources that yearovershot the earth’s 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 environmentalconsequences of two households, such as described in this article. Usingthe information concerning a household’s housing-related consumption, theresearch team simply asked: Where are the households with the lowestecological footprints?

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM 101

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 onlyconcern ‘housing-related’ consumption and not the household’s total privateconsumption. Let us look more closely at what these figures mean, startingwith the dimension of urban size. Although it is interesting to compare thetwo survey areas, caution is recommended for several reasons. Greater Osloand Førde are two complete living, shopping and working areas, but they areso 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 footprintsper household for the two areas are 1.56 ha/year (Førde) and 1.70 ha/year(Greater Oslo). Per household member, these figures are 0.83 ha/year and0.76 ha/year respectively. This shows that the inhabitants of the small ruraltown of Førde have an ecological footprint that is 10% less than their urbancounterparts in the larger city suburb of Greater Oslo.

What causes this? Mainly differences in travel patterns.7 With regardto daily journeys, the Greater Oslo results are favourable. Per householdmember, the residents of the capital travel 60 km per week, while the corre-sponding figure for Førde’s residents is 98 km. This is mainly because cardensity is greater in Førde, where 92% of households have access to a car,compared with ‘only’ 85% in Greater Oslo. However, if we look at the totaldistance travelled by car throughout the year, and if we now include thelong holiday and leisure journeys, this picture is reversed. Despite less caraccess, households in Greater Oslo have the greatest mobility. In fact, house-hold members in Greater Oslo travel an average of 1,500 kilometres moreper year and travel further on privately booked air flights. This implies thataverage household members in Greater Oslo use 14% more energy each yearon private transportation than their rural counterparts in Førde.

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

Figure 3 shows the ecological footprint per household member according toresidential area, distance to the city centre and different types of housing.There can be no doubt that high density, moderate distances between houses

102 ERLING HOLDEN

Figure 2. Average ecological footprint per household in Førde and Greater Oslo. (All numbersin hectare/year.)

and the city centre, and concentrated forms of housing are the most favourablefor reducing a household’s ecological footprint. There are many reasons whydense and concentrated housing turns out positively, from an environmentalpoint of view. First, sparsely populated areas have a much higher percentageof single-family (detached) houses. People living in single-family houseshave a significantly higher energy consumption as well as material housingconsumption than people in all other types of housing. Second, the houses aregenerally larger in sparsely populated areas, which again influences consump-tion patterns significantly. Finally, the percentage of households with accessto a private car is higher in sparsely populated areas. Car access is the mostimportant factor in influencing a household’s transport energy use.

Everything that has been said about densely versus sparsely populatedareas also applies to distances to the city centre. Households living near thecity centre tend to live in multi-family residential buildings or smaller housesand have less access to their own car than those living near, or on, the urbanfringe.

One interesting point should be made, however. On average, householdincome levels are generally higher for those living in densely populated areasand near the city centre than for those living in sparsely populated outlyingareas. However, in spite of this additional income, people living in the citycentre have a lower ecological footprint.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM 103

Figure 3. Average ecological footprint per household and household member in Førde andGreater 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 isa poor alternative, at least with regard to the ecological footprint. On average,the ecological footprint per household member is almost 20% higher than forpeople living in more concentrated types of housing, i.e. semi-detached orterraced 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 arebehind these differences? Is it not possible that the differences are really dueto other conditions such as social class, income, and the composition of thehousehold? Or at least are they not due to a combination of these factors?’

Yes, of course conditions such as income and household compositionmatter. But even when such conditions are controlled for using multivariateregression techniques, the physical/structural dimensions remain central tothe household’s ecological footprint. It should be underlined, however, thatwe did not find unambiguous significant relations between all planningfactors and footprint size. Further investigations are therefore needed to verify

104 ERLING HOLDEN

the connections between the living situation and the ecological footprints ofthe 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 inthe house. There is an economy of scale present where the footprint can beshared among more people. The second factor is car occupancy. Householdswith access to their own cars have a significantly higher footprint than thosewithout. The third one is income. The income that households have at theirdisposal has significance in both places.

The fact that the number of people living in the household, car occupancyand income are important for the size of the ecological footprint comes asno surprise to us. What is interesting in these analyses, however, is that theplanning factors also have a strong influence on the household’s 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 theenvironment, i.e., the smallest ecological footprint? We are looking foran environment-friendly living situation that helps reduce a household’shousing-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 oflong holidays and leisure trips. Based on the material obtained from thesurvey and the calculation of the households’ ecological footprints, fourattributes 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 dothe norms for sustainable development have on the design and localizationof houses? According to Næss (1997), there are two competing models ofsustainable urban development. On the one side there are those who supportcompact cities. The idea here is that large, dense and concentrated cities willsupport 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 urbanstructure, where buildings, agricultural fields and other green areas form asort of mosaic-like pattern.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM 105

The supporters of the compact city8 believe that this has environmentaland energy advantages, as well as social benefits. The list of advantages isremarkably long, including a better environment, affordable public transport,potential for improving the social mix, and a higher quality of life (see Frey,1999, pp. 21–25 for a supplementary list). However, the main justification forthe compact city is the need to promote the least energy-intensive patterns ofactivity to help us cope with the issues of global warming (Frey, 1999).

But opponents insist that the case for compact cities is not proven becausethis concept fails to acknowledge the poor prospects for reversing deep-seateddecentralization trends (Breheny, 1992). The list of arguments against thecompact city is even longer than that of points in its favour; the compactcity implies the rejection of suburban and semi-rural living, neglect of ruralcommunities, less green and open space, increased congestion, increasedsegregation, and less power for making local decisions (see Frey, 1999, p. 25for 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 conceptof a compact city is so dominant that it “seems inconceivable that anyonewould 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 isnow 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 thecompact city concept, two different pairs of concepts are often mixed togetherwithout further qualification. These are centralization-decentralization andconcentration-sprawl (Høyer, 2002). The former refers to the populationpatterns in larger national contexts, the latter to the development processeswithin urban areas. Since the early 1960s and the advent of the car era,urban development may be characterized as centralized sprawl. This meanscentralization of the overall national population pattern, and sprawl of eachof the urban concentrations. In some cases researchers have concluded thatthe concept of a compact city implies further centralization of the populationpattern and that larger cities are favourable in a sustainable urban develop-ment (Newman and Kenworthy, 1989; CEC, 1990). Our research does notsupport such claims. On the contrary, more favourable ecological footprintsresult from having several smaller compact towns and cities, rather than afew large or ‘mega’ cities. This is termed decentralized concentration, andit opposes the dominating development patterns of the last decades in everyaspect (see Figure 4).

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 isthe situation that urban planners have to face. In a modern democracy peoplecannot be transferred from large cities to smaller and more compact towns andcities. Not even in the name of sustainability. The answer to this challenge istherefore to encourage polycentric cities, which implies dense and concen-trated centres within the large cities. These centres should contain a varietyof housing and workplaces, as well as private and public services. It is alsovital that these polycentric cities are built on an effective and environmentallysound public transport infrastructure that connects the different centres.

6. Conclusions and final remarks

This article shows that decentralized concentration could lead to smallerecological footprints of households – a conclusion that seems to be enjoyingwidespread support (Breheny, 1992; Bannister, 1992; Owens, 1992; Newmanand Kenworthy, 2000; Buxton, 2000; Masnavi, 2000; Høyer and Holden,2001). This could be integrated into a policy that strengthens the existenceof smaller compact town and cities throughout the country, or into one thatencourages 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 asslowing 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 orgroup of towns, may be appropriate. Furthermore, inner cities must be reju-

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM 107

venated and public transport must be improved both between and within alltowns. People-intensive activities must be developed around public transportnodes, along the lines of the Dutch principle of the ‘right business in theright place’. This implies that mixed use must be encouraged in cities andzoning discouraged. Finally, urban (or regional) greening must be promotedand combined heat and power (CHP) systems must be promoted in new andexisting 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 canbe changed quickly (e.g., bus routes), but other elements, such as railwaynetworks 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 byRagnhild Skogheim at this institute and Karl Georg Høyer at Western NorwayResearch Institute (WNRI). We are also indebted to the Research Councilof Norway and their research programme on Sustainable Production andConsumption, 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 smallportion (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 houseor 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 ofthe overall research plan and are therefore mentioned briefly here.5 Biocapacity (or biological capacity) refers to the total biological production capacity peryear 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 givenhere. The data that are briefly mentioned in the text are presented fully elsewhere (Holden,2001; Høyer and Holden, 2001).7 The average ecological footprint per household member for energy consumption in thehome and material housing consumption were both about equal for Førde and Greater Oslo.

108 ERLING HOLDEN

The differing circumstances point us in different directions but, in total, the two come outfairly 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 SustainableUrban Form (Eds, Williams, K., Burton, E. and Jenks, M.), E&FN Spon, London and NewYork.

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 Nature’s Interest. EcologicalFootprints as an Indicator of Sustainability, Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Elkin, T., McLaren, D. and Hillman, M. (1991) Reviving the City: Towards Sustainable UrbanDevelopment, 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 bærekraftig forbruk (Housing as basis for a

sustainable consumption), Doktor ingeniøravhandling (Ph.D. Dissertation), Departmentof Town and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,Trondheim, p. 115.

Høyer, K.G. (2002) Analyseverktøy i miljøplanleggingen – Verktøy for mer enn festligeanledninger? (Analytic tools in environmental planning). In: Fra miljøvern til bærekraftigutvikling i kommunene. Erfaringer med Lokal Agenda 21 (From environmental protectionto sustainable development in municipalities. Experiences with Local Agenda 21) (Eds,Aall, C., Høyer, K.G. and Lafferty, W.), Gyldendal Akademisk, Oslo.

Høyer, K.G. and Holden, E. (2001) Housing as Basis for Sustainable Consumption, Interna-tional Journal on Sustainable Development, 4(1), 48–58.

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 UrbanForm? E&FN Spon.

Jørgensen, A.E. et al. (2002) Assessing the Ecological Footprint. A Look at the WWF’s LivingPlanet Report 2002, Environmental Assessment Institute, København.

Lewan, L. (2000) Ecologiska fotavtryck & biokapacitet – verktyg för planering ochuppföljning av hållbar utveckling i ett internationellt perspektiv (Ecological footprintsand bio-capacity – tools for achieving sustainable development), The National Boardfor Housing, Building and Planning in Sweden, Karlskrona / Swedish EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Stockholm.

McLaren, D. (1992) Compact or Dispersed? Dilution is No Solution, Built Environment,18(4), 268–284.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM 109

Masnavi, M-R. (2000) The New Millennium and the New Urban Paradigm: The CompactCity 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 ofU.S. Cities with a Global Survey, Journal of American Planning Association, 55(1), 24–37.

Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (2000) Sustainable Urban Form: The Big Picture. In: AchievingSustainable Urban Form (Eds, Williams, K., Burton, E. and Jenks, M.), E&FN Spon,London and New York.

Næss, P. (1997) Fysisk planlegging og energibruk (Physical Planning and Energy Use), TanoAschehoug, 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.

Røe, B. (1990) Fysisk planlegging – faglig innhold og utfordringer – konsekvenser for utdan-ningen (Physical planning – content and challenges – consequences for education). Forumfor utdanning i Samfunnsplanlegging. Konferanse 12–13 Juni 1990, Norges TekniskeHøgskole, 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 CarryingCapacity, Island Press.

Wackernagel, M. et al. (2002) Tracking the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy,Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, pp. 1–6.

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.