Sustainable Communities and Urban Housing

A Comparative European Perspective

Montserrat Pareja-Eastaway, Nessa Winston, Montserrat Pareja-Eastaway, Nessa Winston

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317433705
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: City Planning & Urban Development
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Since the start of the twenty-first century, urban communities have faced increasing challenges in housing affordability, with environmental issues causing additional concern. It is clear that changes to urban housing are needed to enhance the resilience of cities and improve the economic, social and physical well-being of residents. This book provides a comparative cross-national perspective on urban housing and sustainability in Europe, exploring the key barriers and drivers associated with sustainable urban development and community regeneration.

Country-specific chapters allow for easy comparison, with each summarizing how sustainable housing operates in the country in question, before going on to discuss the key barriers and drivers at play. This book brings a sustainability perspective to the comparative housing literature which frequently fails to integrate the social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainability. The book outlines many of the changes that professionals and residents will need to make to their practices and cultures in order to enhance housing resilience. Students, researchers and professionals with an interest in sustainable housing creation and regeneration will find this book an invaluable reference.

1 Introduction

Nessa Winston and Montserrat Pareja-Eastaway

Introduction

Urban communities are facing a range of social, economic and environmental pressures many of which fall under the broad rubric of ‘sustainability’. Cities and other large urban areas are increasingly recognised as being crucial in addressing climate change and low carbon transitions (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007; Bulkeley, 2010: Bulkeley et al., 2013). While climate change effects and those relating to other environmental problems vary depending on the location, they may involve increased risks for some communities, from flooding and drought, heatwaves, energy poverty, and transport poverty. Urban housing has become, or has the potential to become, a cornerstone of strategies to achieve greater sustainability and for climate change adaptation and mitigation. From a housing perspective, there are also very particular socio-demographic challenges which need to be addressed, in particular those related to population growth and aging, and a range of approaches are required to address these issues (see, for example, Cisneros et al., 2012). Transnational migration also demands implementing appropriate and adequate responses to meeting housing needs in some areas and to facilitate social integration and social cohesion. The economic and housing booms at the beginning of the twenty-first century had a range of impacts on housing systems and on many urban households. These include: housing affordability and household indebtedness; poor housing construction/regeneration; urban sprawl in some locations, densification in others; and long-distance commuting. In some cases, these were issues of concern prior to the boom but continued or accelerated during that period. While the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) had different effects in different countries, in certain locations there were increases in social exclusion, the financial vulnerability of households and rising homelessness. Other problems can be identified in specific regions, such as high levels of vacant dwellings, and the collapse of the construction industry.

This book provides a comparative cross-national perspective on urban housing and sustainability in eleven European countries (Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Norway, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the UK). There is a particular focus on the effectiveness of current policies and practices in promoting urban sustainability, which may be related to the broader political, economic and environmental contexts. However, Bulkeley et al. (2013: 5) argue that in analysing low carbon transitions it is important to pay attention to the ways in which these contexts are ‘mediated by everyday life and the myriad power relations that sustain and constrain such actions’. This book explores the range of barriers to and drivers of more sustainable urban development in each of the countries under examination. In many locations, considerable regeneration of the existing built environment and neighbourhoods will be required if more sustainable communities are to be developed. It will entail the regeneration of the physical aspect (housing, public space, etc.) using environmental criteria, incorporating blue-green infrastructure (trees, pocket parks, green roofs and walls, rain ponds, etc.) and improving the natural environment. However, it also means improving the economic, social and physical well-being of residents. Frequently, it will require changing the practices and cultures of many of the relevant professionals (e.g. urban planners, the construction industry and architects, housing providers, such as local authorities and housing associations, financial institutions and utility companies) and of the residents of urban communities.

It has been argued that much can be learned from European towns and cities about how to create sustainable urban neighbourhoods (Rudlin and Falk, 2009). This book brings a cross-national, sustainable development perspective to the comparative housing literature. It draws on a range of high-quality quantitative and, in some cases, qualitative data. As a result, each chapter is both methodologically rigorous and contextually sensitive. Each of the country chapters attempts to integrate the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability into its discussion of urban housing. In sum, the book places housing issues at the centre of discussions of sustainable urban development in each national context.

Conceptualising sustainable communities and sustainable housing

The terms ‘sustainable communities’ and ‘sustainable housing’ are frequently linked to the literature on sustainable development (hereafter SD). The World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report) defined ‘sustainable development’ as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs’ (WCED, 1987: 43). This is one of the most frequently cited definitions of SD and has been adopted in many UN, EU, national and local policy documents. It emphasises the entitlement of both present and future generations to a fully functioning ‘common good’. It views SD as requiring three mutually reinforcing pillars: economic; social; and environmental. Others add a governance/institutional pillar (Pareja-Eastaway and Støa, 2004). Indeed, some argue that new forms of governance may be crucial for low carbon transitions (Späth and Rohracher, 2013), that different actors may lead these transitions, including, but not always, politicians, entrepreneurs and knowledge makers, and that the scope for urban innovation to have a wide impact depends on the multilevel governance context. At the core of the SD model are principles of justice, equity and limits to growth. However, critics of the model argue that it does not sufficiently emphasise the limits to economic growth in environmental and social terms and/or that ‘de-growth’, reducing production and consumption, is required (Schneider et al., 2010; Kallis, 2011).

While there are numerous definitions of ‘sustainable communities’, Turcu (2009: 41) points out that ‘they have been defined as an aggregate of characteristics including among others economic security and growth, environmental quality and integrity, social cohesion and quality of life, empowerment and governance’. One of the most frequently cited definitions is that contained in the Bristol Accord, the conclusions of a Ministerial Informal on Sustainable Communities in Europe during the UK’s presidency of the EU in 2005 (ODPM, 2005). Drawing on the Brundtland vision of SD, the Bristol Accord defined ‘sustainable communities’ as:

places where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all.

(ODPM, 2005: 6–7)

Social and economic dimensions of sustainable communities include the affordability of the accommodation, and residents’ perceptions of its quality and of the neighbourhood in which it is located. Space for social interaction and community development may be significant. For example, it is argued that sustainable housing should provide access within walking distance to facilities such as community centres and leisure facilities (Worpole, 2003; Worpole and Knox, 2007). Finally, it is important to note that social, economic and environmental risks and vulnerabilities may be more prominent in certain communities and in certain households living within them. Beck (1992) highlights a concern for socially disadvantaged groups, noting that those most likely to experience risk are least likely to have the resources to deal with it.

Research on sustainable housing often focuses on: its location; the construction and/or design; and dwelling use (Winston, 2007, 2010). A key concern is with the ecological limits to some of the inputs to housing (e.g. land and non-renewable construction materials) and with the emissions associated with housing and the residential sector (see, for example, Huby, 1998, 2002; European Environment Agency, 2011). In terms of location, sustainable land-use planning is required which entails a shift towards more housing being constructed within mixed use developments, resisting scattered settlements and a preference for brown-field rather than green-field sites (Wheeler, 2004); proximity to good-quality public transport, which is linked to centres of employment, services and facilities (Lock, 2000; Stead, 2000; Wheeler, 2004), high-quality dwellings and neighbourhoods (Edwards and Turrent, 2000: 9–10); and a shift away from the low residential densities and built forms that are associated with standard suburban housing (Norman et al., 2006; Stead, 2000). It requires ensuring building and design practices that give rise to high-level energy efficiency in dwellings, reduce the use of non-renewable materials, utilise local sources of renewable materials, and facilitate the recycling of valuable resources such as water, energy and waste.

Indicators of sustainable communities and sustainable housing

How sustainable communities and housing are conceptualised affects the indicators which are developed to evaluate and monitor them. Work on the development of such indicators is still rather limited, a situation highlighted by Winston and Pareja-Eastaway (2008). The literature reviewed in the previous section highlights a range of relevant issues and themes from which indicators might be developed, namely: mixed used developments; residential density and built form; sustainable construction and design methods; housing affordability; housing and neighbourhood quality; energy; poverty and social inclusion; food security; sustainable transportation; recycling; and place attachment. Using data on some of these topics available in the European Quality of Life Survey, 2007, plus cross-national data on greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy use, Winston (2014) ranked European countries in terms of the sustainability of their urban communities, revealing signification variations by location. Some of the authors in this volume draw on that work in their chapters.

Eurostat, the statistical agency of the EU, now provides data which can be used as indicators for many of the elements of sustainable housing listed in the previous section, most of which are drawn from the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC). Table 1.1 presents some of these data for the countries examined in this volume. While recognising their limitations (e.g. they are an incomplete set and some individual indicators might be improved), they provide some relevant statistical background on the issues of interest in this volume and are used in some of the chapters. Their main advantages are that they attempt to capture the status of a country relative to others and its progress along some important dimensions; and that they attempt to tap into each of the social, economic and environmental elements of urban housing and communities. They are: the housing cost overburden rate; rent/mortgage arrears; built form (detached, semi-detached, apartment); housing quality; overcrowding; public transportation; environmental protection; poverty risk; and unemployment. The table also includes each country’s score on the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which is produced via a collaborative project between Yale and Columbia universities. There are substantial differences between jurisdictions in the number of environmental instruments they have adopted, the timing of their adoption, the stringency of regulations and their development over time (Knill et al., 2012).

Sustainable communities: supranational governance

Baker (2015) has examined the importance of international diplomacy and governance in promoting sustainable development. At the international level, the UN has played a role via the World Commission on Environment and Development report, and its vision has impacted on policy in many countries. Similarly, the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, 1992, led to the production of national sustainable development strategies and Local Agenda/Action 21 in many countries and local authorities. In most cases such non-binding policies are relatively limited in their capacity to effect significant change due to, for example, limited resources and lack of monitoring (OECD, 2009; Swanson et al., 2004; Meadowcroft, 2007). Legally binding international agreements/directives, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Kyoto Protocol or EU directives, are more promising, although not without implementation problems (Baker, 2015; Jordan and Tosun, 2013).

Table 1.1 Indicators of sustainable housing

Sources: Eurostat (SILC, 2012, unless otherwise indicated); Environmental Performance Index (EPI).

Notes: Housing cost overburden rate = percentage of population living in a household where total housing costs (net of housing allowances) > 40 per cent of total disposable household income (net of housing allowances). Housing quality index = percentage of population with none of following problems: leaking roof, damp walls/floors/foundation, or rot in window frames or floor; lack of bath or shower in the dwelling; lack of indoor flushing toilet for sole use of the household; too dark/not enough light. Overcrowding rate = percentage of population living in an overcrowded household. A person is considered as living in an overcrowded household if the household does not have at its disposal a minimum number of rooms equal to: one room for the household; one room per couple in the household; one room for each single person aged 18 or more; one room per pair of single people of the same gender between 12 and 17 years of age; one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not included in the previous category; one room per pair of children under 12 years of age. EPI is an aggregate of 20 indicators of national-level environmental data. It consists of two overarching objectives: environmental health and ecosystem vitality. The former measures the protection of human health from environmental harm while the latter measures ecosystem protection and resource management. These two objectives are subdivided into nine categories covering high-priority environmental policy issues, including air quality, forests, fisheries, and climate and energy. Higher scores indicate better performance and vice versa. The EPI is a collaborative project of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (YCELP) and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University, in conjunction with the World Economic Forum. Harmonised unemployment rates (percentage), monthly (M09), seasonally adjusted.

Access to housing and housing assistance are recognised in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and in its European Social Charter. There is no formal EU housing policy, but its influence on EU member states has increased in a number of ways. First, there is a wide range of EU regulations on the environment which can affect housing development, such as those for water quality and flood risk (Jordan and Adelle, 2013) but the most relevant relate to the energy efficiency of dwellings. For instance, the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive required member states to: enhance their ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Notes on contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Republic of Ireland
• 3 Spain
• 4 Sweden
• 5 Norway
• 6 Denmark
• 7 The Netherlands
• 8 The United Kingdom
• 9 Romania
• 10 Hungary
• 11 Switzerland
• 12 Germany
• 13 Conclusions
• Index