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

2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Ecological footprints and sustainable urban form

ERLING HOLDEN
Western 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 (19972001) entitled
Housing as a basis for sustainable consumption. The overall aim was to obtain more empirical 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 major
challenge 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, redecoration 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 Footprinting was then used as an analytical tool to analyse the environmental consequences of this
consumption. These ecological footprint analyses suggest that sustainable urban development
points towards decentralized 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 knowledge about the effects of physical planning. Bjrn Re (1990) points out that
physical planning should form the basis of the decisions or measures that
form our environment and that influence human activity. One of the basic
assumptions in this article is that physical surroundings influence human
behaviour.

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 something must be 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, sustainable 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 development, 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 increasingly linked to the use of products and services. It is no longer the factory
manufacturing products that necessarily presents the most serious threat to
nature 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 specific
term sustainable consumption.

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 physical planning and sustainable development. Housing is 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 of material housing consumption is
required 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 sevenfold (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
transport constitutes 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 investigation 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) undertake
longer 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

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 principles. The question of a towns size and national settlement patterns is
closely related to the question of centralization 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:

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM

95

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 environment? (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
The research 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 questionnaire distributed by post. The aim was to obtain an idea of how housingrelated consumption varied under different living situations. Analysis of
this data would also provide an idea as to what percentage of these variations 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 the
mechanisms 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

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 consumption 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 residential 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:

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM

97

consumer behaviour: information was collected on a broad range of

housing-related consumption with regard to conditions (directly or indirectly) 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 on inter alia services 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 individuals living in the households;
environmental attitudes: e.g., attitudes to general, environmental political 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.

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 by
William 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 the Proceedings 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 valuable 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, ecological 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 ecological 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 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
a synthesis 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, for
professionals 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. Ecological 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 nonorganic 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 problematic aspect is the idea of aggregating many different land categories into a
single 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 footprinting. But how does it work? It is customary to operate with six different
land categories: cropland, grazing land, forests, fishing grounds, energy footprint and built-up land. Cropland includes the area needed to produce all
food (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 that
are not crop-fed. The forest footprint refers to the area required to produce
forestry products, which are consumed globally, while the fishing ground
footprint represents the area required to produce the fish and seafood that we
consume. The built-up land footprint comprises infrastructure for housing,
transportation and industrial production as well as hydroelectric power
installations. Finally, the energy footprint refers 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 that
the 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 to The Living Planet Report 2002 (WWF, 2002), the global ecological 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 of
the 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 sophisticated 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 lowest
ecological footprints?

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM

101

4. Results
This section presents the results of the footprint calculations. The calculations were based on data taken from the surveys and the results are presented
according 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 household 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 of urban 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 comparison
must 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 corresponding 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, household 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

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 consumption 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 areas
and 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.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM

103

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 situation 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 to
the 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

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 predominant factors with significant influence on the ecological footprint per household 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 factors also have 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 characteristics 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 situation 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 reducing
the 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.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM

105

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 sustainable 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 and
concentration-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 development (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, and
it opposes the dominating development patterns of the last decades in every
aspect (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 population 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 concentrated 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 concentration is based on sustainable development and urban form policies such as
slowing down the decentralization process and realizing that compact city
proposals, 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-

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM

107

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 challenge 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 cooperation 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 car

throughout 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 concerned, 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.

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 Development and Urban Form (Ed, Breheny, M.), Pion, London.
Breheny, M. (1992) Sustainable Development and Urban Form: An Introduction, In: Sustainable 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 Communities, 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 protection
to 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, International 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.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM

109

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: Sustainable 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 utdanningen (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 Development, 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.