This article was downloaded by: [University College Dublin]On: 19 April 2013, At: 04:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Planning StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

Sustainable Communities? AComparative Perspective on UrbanHousing in the European UnionNessa Winston aa School of Applied Social Science, University College Dublin,Dublin, Republic of IrelandVersion of record first published: 19 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Nessa Winston (2013): Sustainable Communities? A ComparativePerspective on Urban Housing in the European Union, European Planning Studies,DOI:10.1080/09654313.2013.788612

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.788612

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Sustainable Communities? AComparative Perspective on UrbanHousing in the European Union

NESSA WINSTON

School of Applied Social Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland

(Received August 2012; accepted March 2012)

ABSTRACT This paper examines the sustainability of urban housing in the European Union. Itoutlines a number of key criteria for assessing the sustainability of urban housing includingmixed-use developments, higher residential densities, high-quality dwellings and neighbourhoods,affordability and food production. Utilizing the 2007 tranche of the European Quality of LifeSurvey, it finds significant variations between countries in the sustainability of urban housing andcommunities and highlights the leaders and laggards in this regard. The relative success of urbanareas in Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Finland deserves some additional research, althoughthere is scope for considerable improvement even in these “leader” countries. The paperhighlights significant problems with housing and communities in some urban locations whichmust significantly retract from (a) the quality of life of residents in these locations and (b) thesustainability of their cities.

1. Introduction

Housing policies and policies can contribute to or detract from the sustainable development

of a city. The importance of housing was recognized in the report of the World Commission

on Environment and Development and the global action plan for Sustainable Development,

Agenda 21, and attention to the issues have subsequently been developed through an emer-

gent body of academic literature (Bhatti et al., 1994; Huby, 1998; Bhatti, 2001; Bhatti &

Dixon, 2003; Tosics, 2004; Priemus, 2005; Priemus & ten Heuvelhof, 2005; Hall &

Purchase, 2006; Williams & Dair, 2007; Winston, 2007, 2010; Seyfang, 2008; Pickerill

& Maxey, 2009; Seyfang & Hazeltine, 2010). However, the sustainability of some urban

housing is open to question, especially when issues relating to the quality of cities and

towns as places to live arise from the literature including research on shrinking cities

(Hall & Pfeiffer, 2000; Couch et al., 2005; Mace et al., 2005, 2007) and compact cities

Correspondence Address: Nessa Winston, School of Applied Social Science, University College Dublin, Belfield,

Dublin 4, Republic of Ireland. Email: nessa.winston@ucd.ie

European Planning Studies, 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.788612

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

(Howley, 2009). Extensive urban regeneration efforts may also result in problems of sus-

tainability. For example, a number of studies highlight the transient nature of the population

in many areas whereby those who can afford to do so relocate to the suburbs or beyond, in

particular families or those intending to start a family (see, e.g. Schoon, 2001; Allen &

Blandy, 2004; Mace et al., 2007). Poor quality of life in cities and towns has been linked

to counter-urbanization and peri-urban development (see, e.g. Gkartzios & Scott, 2010)

and to the expansion of second homes in rural areas (Paris, 2010) whereby people depart

urban areas in search of a better quality of life. Furthermore, research on sustainable com-

munities suggests they are very limited in their implementation, and those that have been

successfully implemented are far from affordable for the majority of the population

(Barton, 2000). This paper examines the sustainability of housing in the urban areas of

20 European Union (EU) member states. It begins with a discussion of the conceptualiz-

ation of sustainable housing and communities. After a description of the main data and

methods employed in the research on which this paper is based, principally a secondary

analysis of the 2007 European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) and other comparative stat-

istical data, it proceeds with an assessment of the sustainability of housing in the 20

countries under examination using a broad range of indicators.

2. Sustainable Development, Sustainable Communities and Sustainable Urban

Housing

While there is considerable debate about the meaning of sustainable development (Redc-

lift, 1987; Carley & Christie, 1992; Jacobs, 1995; O’Riordan & Voisey, 1998), the most

frequently cited definition is that of the World Commission on Environment and Develop-

ment. It defined it as development that meets “the needs of the present without compromis-

ing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED or Brundtland

Commission, 1987, p. 8). Many have adopted this vision with its focus on economic,

social and environmental pillars, but problems have arisen due to varying interpretations

of it, confusion among policy-makers and its failure to enter popular discourse (Tuxworth,

2001; Ellis et al., 2004, p. 11). Most importantly, when it comes to implementation the

concept becomes highly contested (Jacobs, 1995). Indeed, problems regarding implemen-

tation at local level were such that an evaluation of the UN Local Agenda 21 programme,

which appealed to local authorities to engage in sustainable development (SD), resulted in

it being re-launched in 2002 as Local Action 21 (UNCED, 1992).

Definitions of sustainable community vary considerably (see, e.g. Lafferty & Coenen,

2001; Gilchrist, 2002; Long & Hutchins, 2003; Green et al., 2005). As Turcu (2009,

p. 41) points out, “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”. The definition which has

gained most traction in the European context is that contained in the Bristol Accord, pro-

duced at one of the EU “informal” ministerial meetings, meetings which are linked to the

six monthly revolving EU presidency. It outlined a common approach to creating sustain-

able communities which were defined 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,

2 N. Winston

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all. (ODPM,

2005, pp. 6–7)

The 2007 Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, with its focus on integrated

urban development and deprived urban neighbourhoods, was intended to build on the

Bristol Accord (EU Ministers, 2007).

With the exception of a few notables (Bhatti, 1993, 2001; Bhatti et al., 1994; Huby,

1998; Bhatti & Dixon, 2003; Tosics, 2004; Priemus, 2005; Hall & Purchase, 2006; Wil-

liams & Dair, 2007; Winston, 2009), conceptualizations of the nature of sustainable

housing are rather limited. Some researchers choose to focus on the environmental

aspect to the neglect of the economic and social pillars (Priemus, 2005; Priemus & ten

Heuvelhof, 2005). Others adopt a more inclusive approach to sustainable housing

(Brown & Bhatti, 2003; Godschalk, 2004; Winston, 2009). For example, Brown and

Bhatti (2003, p. 510) argue that a “sustainable housing system must incorporate social,

economic, and environmental sustainability in a mutually reinforcing way”.

One cannot deny that there are some limitations to these conceptions of sustainable

development, sustainable communities and sustainable housing, in particular their nebu-

lous nature as concepts. However, there has been an increasing emphasis on them in

policy and many are now enshrined in international, national and local planning docu-

ments. This paper presents a conceptualization of sustainable housing which draws on

the Brundtland multi-dimensional definition (with the mutually reinforcing social, econ-

omic and environmental pillars), and the Bristol Accord vision of sustainable commu-

nities. In developing a working definition of sustainable housing, I argue that it is not

simply about the dwelling but is also about the broader community in which it is

located. Building on earlier work, (Winston, 2009), I suggest that sustainable housing

requires a focus on aspects of its location, construction/design, dwelling use and regener-

ation. In terms of location, Wheeler (2004) argues that 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. The sustainable planning literature suggests that housing should

be built close to good quality public transport which is linked to centres of employment,

services and facilities (Newman, 1996; Lock, 2000; Stead, 2000; Wheeler, 2004). A

related issue is the need to construct (and regenerate) housing and communities with

social resources in mind. For example, the design should be such that there is access

within walking distance to facilities which promote social interaction and community

capacity building (e.g. community centres, cafes, childcare, play and other leisure facili-

ties) (Worpole, 2003; Worpole & Know, 2007).

In terms of construction, sustainable housing requires high-quality dwellings and neigh-

bourhoods (Edwards & Turrent, 2000; Kenworthy, 2006). Otherwise, people will not

remain in them, unless they are forced to do so due to, for example, limited financial

resources. Dwellings also need to be constructed at higher residential densities

(Newman & Kenworthy, 2000; Stead, 2000). There is some debate the actual density

required (Wheeler, 2004; Whitehead, 2006), and Bramley and Power (2009) argue that,

while improving access to services, compact housing in some UK cities can worsen neigh-

bourhood problems and dissatisfaction. However, many authors argue that a shift away

from low-density suburban housing is essential (Norman et al., 2006), and that urban

sustainability requires good quality higher density developments in high-quality

Sustainable Communities? 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

surroundings with access to a range of outdoor open spaces (Stead, 2000; Norman et al.,

2006). Green space is required for leisure, but also for biodiversity, horticulture, agricul-

ture and forestry (Howe & Wheeler, 1999; Kenworthy, 2006; Winston, 2009). Some forms

of urban food production may assist in addressing food security and food poverty issues

(see, e.g. Hopkins, 2000; Kenworthy, 2006). It may also “re-affirm community identity,

enable training, contribute to local economies, improve people’s health and diet, act as

a source of leisure and contribute to biodiversity” (Howe & Wheeler, 1999, p. 24). Sustain-

able housing also requires the use of building and design practices which increase the

energy efficiency of dwellings, reduce the use of non-renewable materials, utilize local

sources of renewable materials and facilitate the recycling of resources (e.g. water,

energy and waste) (Edwards & Turrent, 2000).

Another significant aspect of the construction (and use) of sustainable urban housing

involves ensuring that there is a supply of affordable housing (Brunick & Webster,

2003; Barker, 2004; Gurran, 2008). Gurran (2008, p. 109) argues that higher housing

costs can be associated with compact cities due to “high accessibility, efficient service

provision, economic vitality and the investment certainty associated with clear planning”.

However, she highlights that “when under-utilised or decaying urban areas are subject to

planned or market driven urban renewal. . . affordable housing commitments need strong

policy and legislative support” or “regions may become victims of their own planning

success, losing the essential workers and social diversity integral to on-going economic

prosperity” (Gurran, 2008, p. 109). Where problems of affordability arise, people may

move to more distant suburban or rural locations to reduce their housing costs, which

may increase car dependence unless there is good public transport linking them to their

place of employment. Providing for mixed tenure can facilitate the supply of affordable

housing. Moves to the suburbs and beyond may also be triggered by poor quality dwellings

and neighbourhoods (Howley, 2009). Hence, high-quality design and construction, includ-

ing a variety of dwelling types with consideration of universal housing design, are essen-

tial for sustainable urban housing and communities.

Regarding the use of a dwelling, housing built to facilitate low energy use is more likely

to result in a high standard of energy efficiency in the use of dwellings. Similarly, sustain-

able designs can increase the extent of recycling among residents. Another important

aspect of use is the management and maintenance of housing. Priemus (2005) notes that

the potential of housing providers such as social and private landlords to contribute to

SD is often neglected despite their pivotal role. In addition, housing management and

regeneration should involve partnership with residents or potential residents and the pro-

vision of social supports for vulnerable households (Winston, 2009, 2010). As much of the

existing housing stock in many countries may not meet these exacting standards, signifi-

cant regeneration or retrofitting will be required. Where feasible, the emphasis should be

on renovating housing rather than demolishing it (de Jonge, 2005; Klunder, 2005; van der

Flier & Thomson, 2006). Where demolition is required, materials should be recycled as

much as possible.

A key environmental indicator when examining the sustainability of urban housing and

communities is greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such emissions have been linked to

economic affluence (see, e.g. Burns et al., 1997; York et al., 2003), and they are linked

to energy consumption which tends to be higher in urban areas (Roberts & Grimes,

2002; Jorgenson, 2003, 2004). Finally, sustainable housing requires a shift away from

4 N. Winston

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

non-renewable sources of energy (especially fossil fuels) towards renewable sources

including hydro, wind, solar, geothermal and electricity from biomass/waste.

This paper attempts to assess the extent to which sustainable housing is in evidence in

European urban areas mainly using data from the 2007 EQLS but also other comparative

statistical sources. More details on the data and indicators are outlined below.

3. Data and Methods

The main data source for this paper is the 2007 EQLS. This is a survey of households in the

27 EU member states, the three current EU candidate countries and Norway. Approxi-

mately 1000 adults (aged 18 years and over) were interviewed in each country.

However, larger samples were employed in France, Italy and the UK (1500) and

Germany (2000). The sampling procedure was a multi-stage stratified random sample.

The focus is on those living in urban areas, that is, cities and medium–large towns.

Certain countries have been excluded due to their small urban sample sizes or missing

data on one or more of the indices (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg, Malta,

Romania and Slovenia). Data were collected via face-to-face interviews. The question-

naire covers a range of topics relevant to quality of life and well-being, including a

number of questions relevant to the key dimensions of sustainable housing outlined above.

3.1 Mixed-use Developments and Transportation

Respondents were asked about the availability within walking distance of each of the following

facilities: food store or supermarket; post office; banking facilities; cinema, theatre or cultural

centre; public transport and recycling. In addition, they were asked about access to a doctor/

hospital/medical centre. An index was created for those who were in walking distance of

each of these facilities and those who had no difficulty accessing medical services. This

resulted in a scale with scores ranging from 0 to 7 with high scores (6 and 7) representing

mixed use or a high level of sustainability. There is also a question on the quality of public

transport in the country (ranging from 1 to 10) with the focus here on those who rated it as

“good” (scores of 6–10). In addition, the paper utilizes Eurostat data on modal split of passen-

ger transport for each of the countries under examination focusing on public transport (percen-

tage in total inland passenger–kilometres). While these data are only available at national

level, it provides a valuable and interesting comparative perspective on public transport use

in different locations in the EU.

3.2 Residential Density

There are no questions on residential density in the survey. However, data are available

from Housing Statistics in the EU (Federcasa, 2006) on multiple family dwellings as a

share of the total dwelling stock, which gives some indication of density for the countries

as a whole.

3.3 Housing Quality

Housing quality was assessed using an index based on six items in the survey, namely

whether or not the household had problems with: shortage of space; rot in windows,

Sustainable Communities? 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

doors or floors; damp or leaks in walls or roof; lack of indoor flushing toilet; lack of bath or

shower and lack of place to sit outside (e.g. garden, balcony and terrace). The household

was given a value of one for each problem it did not report having, which resulted in an

index consisting of scores from 0 (poorest quality) to 6 (highest quality). Given the very

high level of housing quality in most of the countries under investigation, the analysis

focuses on those with the highest quality housing (households with a score of 6).

3.4 Neighbourhood Quality

An index to assess neighbourhood environmental quality was created from responses to six

items in the questionnaire which investigate the quality of the immediate neighbourhood

of the home, namely: the extent to which the household had very many reasons, many

reasons, a few reasons or no reason at all to complain about: noise; air pollution; lack

of access to recreational or green areas; water quality; crime violence or vandalism and

litter or rubbish in the street. Those who indicated that they had no reason to complain

about each of these items were given a score of one which led to an index ranging from

0 (poorest quality) to 6 (highest quality). Scores were recoded into low (scores of 0–2),

medium (3–4) and high (5–6) quality neighbourhood environments and the analysis

focuses on the latter group.

3.5 Housing Affordability

Respondents were asked about the extent to which their total housing costs were a financial

burden. This question is used in this paper as an indicator of housing affordability with the

focus on those who indicated that their housing costs were not a burden.

3.6 Food Production

Finally, another element of sustainable housing is the ability to grow your own food, be it

in a private garden/area or in a community garden or allotment. In order to tap into this

element, the paper draws on data from a question in the survey in which respondents

were asked if, in the past year, their household had helped to meet its need for food by

growing vegetables or fruit or keeping poultry or livestock.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

An essential indicator when comparing the sustainability of urban housing and commu-

nities in different locations is GHG emissions. As it is one of the EU’s headline sustainable

development indicators, cross-national data on total GHG emissions are available from

Eurostat via the European Environment Agency. These were divided by population size

to get per capita figures. The indicator refers to man-made emissions of the “Kyoto

basket” of GHGs for the Kyoto base year. It excludes emissions linked to land use,

land-use change and forestry as well as emissions from international aviation and maritime

transport. For inclusion in the sustainable housing index, countries were ranked according

to their per capita emissions (1–20 countries) and then given a score based on this ranking

(1–18 as two countries had the same emissions). Higher rankings indicate higher

sustainability.

6 N. Winston

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

3.8 Electricity Generated from Renewable Sources (% of Gross Electricity

Consumption)

This paper also draws on another of the EU’s sustainable development indicators, namely

national-level figures for electricity generated from renewable sources as a percentage of

gross electricity consumption. This indicator is the ratio between the electricity produced

from renewable energy sources and the gross national electricity consumption for a given

calendar year.

Table 1 summarizes the available social, economic and environmental indicators of sus-

tainable housing and communities utilized in this paper.

4. Findings

4.1 Mixed-use Developments and Transportation

Table 2 reveals that there are significant differences between countries in the extent to

which their urban areas may be considered mixed use. Two EU15 countries (Ireland

and Greece) come out on top in this mixed-use summary index with over three quarters

of households living in such areas, but they are closely followed by two Eastern European

countries (Lithuania and the Czech Republic). By contrast, relatively low proportions live

in mixed-use neighbourhoods in Sweden, the Netherlands (46%) and Germany (47%)

(Table 3).

Public transport is relatively accessible to urban dwellers in most countries. Greece and

Portugal tie for first place in terms of access (98%). The survey also asked respondents

about the quality of public transport and these data highlight significant differences in

access to and quality of public transport services in a number of countries. In particular,

relatively high proportions of households in Greece, Portugal, Hungary, Latvia and Slove-

nia have access to public transport in their neighbourhood, but relatively low proportions

perceive that transport to be of good quality. Turning to transport use, there was a rela-

tively high modal split for public transport in Hungary (38%), Slovakia (28%) and the

Czech Republic (24%). At the other end of the scale, there was a relatively low modal

split for public transport in Lithuania (9%), UK (12%), the Netherlands (13%) and

Germany (14%).

The urban areas of most of these countries appear to be well serviced by food stores/

supermarkets. Almost all households in Greece and Lithuania have such a facility in

walking distance. However, Sweden is at the bottom of the table on this indicator

(83%), followed by Belgium (85%), Germany (86%) and France (87%). Sweden is also

at the bottom of the pile for access to both post office and banking facilities (59% and

51%, respectively) while Greece is in first place for access to post office and second

place for access to banking (93% and 94%, respectively). Online facilities may reduce

the need for such services and these countries may be more advanced with regard to Inter-

net access and the availability of such services online. This information is not available but

figures for the frequency of Internet use reveals that it is highest in Sweden but it is also

relatively high in Denmark where a high proportion of urban dwellers also have banking

facilities in walking distance. More significant differences exist between countries when it

comes to access to medical services. This time Sweden comes in first place (93%),

followed by France (93%) and Denmark (91%). At the other end of the scale are

Sustainable Communities? 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

Table 1. Sustainable development, housing and communities: dimensions, indicators and variables

Sustainable developmentdimensions

Sustainable housing and communitiesindicator groups Available cross-national variables (source)

Environmental Mixed use Mixed use index: Availability within walking distance of: food store/supermarket;post office; banking facilities; cinema, theatre /cultural centre; public transportand recycling. No difficulty in access to a doctor/hospital/medical centre (EQLS,2007)

Higher residential densities Multiple family dwellings as a share of the total dwelling stock (Housing Statistics inthe EU (Federcasa, 2006)

Brown-field . green-field sitesSustainable construction methods and

materialsLow energy use/use of renewable energy

sourcesElectricity generated from renewable sources as a percentage of gross electricity

consumption (Eurostat, nd)High recycling by usersGood public transport † Walking distance to public transport (EQLS, 2007)

† Quality of public transport (EQLS, 2007)† Modal split of passenger transport (public transport) (Eurostat, nd)

Food production If, in the past year, household helped to meet its need for food by growing vegetables/fruit/keeping poultry/ livestock (EQLS, 2007)

Sustainable management and maintenanceSustainable regenerationGHG emissions from residential and

construction sectorsTotal GHG emissions per capita (Eurostat, nd)

Economic Affordable housing Housing costs not perceived to be a financial burden (EQLS, 2007)Social High-quality dwelling Housing quality index: No problems with: space; rot in windows, doors/floors; damp

or leaks in walls /roof; lack of indoor flushing toilet; lack of bath/ shower; & placeto sit outside (EQLS, 2007)

High-quality neighbourhood (includinggreen space)

Neighbourhood quality index: No reason to complain about the following inneighbourhood: noise; air pollution; lack of access to recreational/green areas;water quality; crime violence/ vandalism; litter or rubbish in the street (EQLS,2007)

Availability of social resources:community centres, leisure facilities, etc.

Availability within walking distance of: cinema, theatre/cultural centre (EQLS,2007)

8N

.W

insto

n

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

Table 2. Mixed-use neighbourhoods, EU (2007) (%)

Country

Mixed-usesummary

index

Publictransport in

walkingdistance

Food store/supermarket in

walking distance

Post office inwalkingdistance

Bankingfacilities in

walkingdistance

Medicalservice inwalkingdistance

Cinema, theatreand cultural centrein walking distance

Recycling inwalkingdistance

Ireland 78.8 92.1 94.0 89.6 86.3 87.9 66.5 87.3Greece 76.3 98.1 98.4 92.7 94.4 80.9 75.6 70.8Lithuania 74.0 94.0 98.8 90.4 90.5 82.2 60.3 98.4Czech

Republic71.7 97.1 91.2 85.1 77.2 72.9 71.1 87.6

Portugal 67.3 98.1 96.8 84.6 85.1 74.1 64.6 75.0Denmark 66.8 95.0 94.5 67.7 81.6 90.5 62.6 79.7Austria 66.3 97.0 90.1 77.0 86.1 74.1 52.6 87.4France 66 90.5 86.9 84.1 78.5 92.5 61.4 71.3Hungary 64.5 90.3 95.2 86.9 83.1 76.0 71.4 56.6UK 64.4 97.5 94.0 87.1 74.0 84.7 52.9 81.0Poland 59.5 93.0 96.5 89.8 85.9 74.1 66.8 58.1Belgium 56.4 89.0 84.7 75.6 82.2 83.4 46.9 67.6Spain 55.0 96.3 94.7 82.5 96.3 60.0 59.2 63.1Latvia 51.1 95.1 93.3 82.5 75.6 71.4 30.1 86.1Finland 50.8 93.6 91.5 72.9 55 89.2 37.1 90.0Slovak

Republic50.0 90.3 94.4 75.7 66.7 70.4 52.1 53.2

Italy 48.2 91.3 92.0 79.7 82.8 49.0 51.0 62.8Germany 46.5 96.8 85.5 64.6 78.5 79.8 35.5 78.2Netherlands 45.7 95.2 90.1 68.9 69.0 89.5 33.5 73.5Sweden 45.7 96.0 83.1 59.3 51.0 93.0 38.6 85.8Mean 60.3 94.3 92.3 79.8 80.0 78.8 54.5 75.7

Source: EQLS, 2007.

Su

stain

ab

leC

om

mu

nities?

9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

Italy (49%), Spain (60%) and the Slovak Republic (70% respectively). Greece is on top for

access to cinema, theatre/cultural centres (76%), followed by Hungary and the Czech

Republic (71%). At the bottom of the pile here are: Latvia (30%), the Netherlands

(34%), Germany (36%), Finland (37%) and Sweden (39%). Easy access to recycling

facilities is crucial from an environmental perspective. However, again, there are consider-

able variations between these countries in this regard. Lithuania is at the top of the table on

this indicator with 98% of households having access to recycling, followed by Finland

(90%), Austria (87%), Ireland (87%), Latvia (86%) and the UK (81%). The situation is

relatively poor in the Slovak Republic (53%), Hungary (57%) and Poland (58%).

4.2 Housing Density

Unfortunately, the EQLS does not contain information about housing density. However,

national-level data on dwellings in multi-family units is available for each country for the

year 2004 (Figure 1). It indicates that the density is highest in Italy, Latvia, Poland and Lithua-

nia. Over 60% of dwellings in these countries are in the form of multi-family dwellings. In

contrast, Ireland, the UK, Portugal and Belgium are distinguished by relatively low housing

density—less than a third of households in these countries reside in multi-family dwellings.

Table 3. Modal split of passenger transport:

public transport (percentage in total inland

passenger–kilometres), EU (2007)

Country Public transport (%)

Hungary 38.1Slovakia 28.0Czech Republic 24.3Belgium 20.9Austria 20.9Latvia 20.6Greece 20.1Spain 19.0Denmark 18.0Italy 16.7Ireland 16.4Poland 16.4Sweden 16.1France 15.1Finland 15.0Portugal 14.6Germany 14.3Netherlands 13.3UK 11.5Lithuania 9.3Mean 18.4

Source: Eurostat (nd).

10 N. Winston

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

4.3 Housing Quality

Table 4 reveals significant differences between countries in the proportion of urban respon-

dents living in good quality housing. In general, the worst conditions appear to be in the

former communist countries (excluding the Slovak and Czech Republics) and the southern

European countries (except Italy). In the case of the former communist states, poor con-

ditions have been linked to neglect of urban environment under communism, mass priva-

tization of formerly state-owned dwellings in the early 1990s, the withdrawal of subsidies

for maintenance, and the inability of very poor home owners to pay for the maintenance of

their dwellings (Lowe & Tsenkova, 2003; Roberts, 2003; Norris & Domanski, 2009).

Southern European countries have very high rates of home ownership due to the extensive

use of non-monetary, familialist home ownership supports there (Allen et al., 2004). This

results in high rates of home ownership among low-income households but also poorer con-

ditions (Norris & Winston, 2011). Satisfaction with quality is highest in Italy where 70% of

households reside in high-quality dwellings. Sweden, Germany, the Slovak Republic,

Denmark and Ireland are also distinguished by high-quality housing.

Table 4 indicates the types of housing quality problems which are most common for

urban households in the countries examined here (lower scores on the indicators in this

table indicate higher sustainability). Adequate space is an essential element of sustainable

urban housing, particularly if families are to be accommodated in cities and towns.

However, the data reveal that a shortage of space is a problem for between approximately

a quarter and a third of households in some countries, including some former communist

countries (Latvia, Hungary, Poland and Lithuania) but in France, Greece, the UK,

Portugal, Ireland and Spain. Italians are least likely to have problems with space. This

may be due to the longstanding existence of regulations on minimum space standards in

that country, which Gallent et al. (2010) highlight as exemplary compared with

Figure 1. Share of multi-family dwellings in total dwelling stock.Source: Federcasa (2006).

Sustainable Communities? 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

England, for example, where a legal minimum space standard was absent. Another issue

raised by a significant proportion of urban dwellers in a number of countries is the lack of a

place to sit outside. This is a problem for a sizable proportion of respondents in Portugal

(30%), Austria (30%), Spain (29%), the Czech Republic (24%), France (24%), Poland

(24%) and Hungary (23%). Rotting windows, doors or floors are a problem for about a

quarter of households in Latvia (27%), Hungary (25%) and Greece (23%). Dampness/

leaks in the walls or roof are an issue for a sizeable proportion of households in Latvia

(28%) and Portugal (23%). Very low proportions of households lack an indoor toilet,

bath or shower. However, in Latvia this is a problem for 15% of respondents.

4.4 Neighbourhood Quality

Overall, the data in Table 5 reveal considerable problems with the quality of urban neigh-

bourhoods in the European countries examined here although there are significant differ-

ences between the countries. In 12 of the 20 countries less than a third of respondents

perceive that they reside in a good quality neighbourhood. This includes a number of

Table 4. Housing quality issues, EU (2007) (%)

Country

High-quality

dwellingssummary

indexa

Shortageof space

1b

Rot inwindows,

doors/floors

2

Damp/leaks in

wall/roof

3

Lack ofindoor

flushingtoilet

4

Lack ofbath orshower

5

Lack ofplace to

sitoutside

6

Italy 69.6 14.7 11.8 7.7 0.7 0.6 11.1Sweden 67.6 17.0 4.5 7.7 0.5 1.2 9.3Slovak

Republic67.6 14.7 12.5 9.7 1.6 1.6 15.3

Germany 67.5 15.0 4.3 7.2 2.3 2.2 17.1Ireland 67.3 23.3 4.6 9.2 2.9 4.6 12.6Denmark 66.8 17.1 7.6 16.6 1.3 1.9 7.6Netherlands 65.0 17.6 8.7 13.9 0.8 1.4 8.1Finland 65.0 19.9 5.7 11.7 1.4 2.1 6.5Belgium 64.3 18.5 6.6 11.3 2.8 2.8 16.7Austria 61.3 18.8 2.1 6.6 1.0 1.6 29.8UK 60.5 23.6 9.6 14.8 2.5 2.1 11.1Czech

Republic60.0 14.7 5.2 10.1 2.3 2.3 23.5

Greece 57.2 23.8 22.9 13.7 1.2 1.2 11.5Spain 55.4 21.1 5.3 10.4 0.9 0.9 28.7France 52.8 24.7 10.1 17.2 0.9 1.7 24.1Portugal 50.9 22.7 7.7 22.6 1.0 0.5 30.3Poland 47.0 32.0 11.5 12.8 3.8 4.5 23.6Lithuania 44.4 29.6 17.6 15.2 7.5 6.4 20.0Hungary 44.3 32.9 25.0 13.4 4.1 4.3 22.8Latvia 36.8 35.6 26.7 28.6 13.6 15.1 25.2Mean 58.6 21.9 10.5 13.0 2.7 3.0 17.7

aHighest quality housing (scores of 6).bLower scores on problems 1–6 indicate higher sustainability.

Source: EQLS, 2007.

12 N. Winston

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

Table 5. Neighbourhood quality, EU (2007) (%)

Country

High-qualityneighbourhoodssummary indexa

Problemswith noise

1b

Problems withair pollution

2

Problems withquality of tap

water3

Problems withlitter or rubbish

4

Problems withcrime, violence,

vandalism5

Lack of access torecreational/green

space6

Finland 60.8 5.1 2.8 1.4 4.7 2.9 0.9Denmark 55.7 8.0 8.9 1.9 11.4 6.5 3.2Germany 48.0 10.0 9.2 2.9 11.5 10.2 6.5Netherlands 45.5 9.5 11.7 0.9 13.9 7.9 7.2Sweden 42.7 6.3 8.0 0.9 8.9 5.3 3.3Austria 40.0 20.4 20.3 8.2 16.3 15.3 17.8UK 37.8 9.3 9.1 4.8 23.0 17.8 7.5Ireland 34.9 15.3 12.4 15.5 31.0 23.1 18.6France 29.6 23.9 38.4 22.4 29.0 21.5 25.1Slovak

Republic26.4 14.6 19.6 11.3 18.2 21.0 14.0

Latvia 23.3 21.7 23.3 25.8 23.2 23.0 17.8Spain 23.0 21.9 22.4 13.8 13.6 9.5 15.2Czech

Republic22.1 16.3 26.0 4.0 21.0 22.9 13.5

Belgium 20.9 21.0 22.9 19.1 27.4 17.1 16.9Hungary 16.2 28.3 34.4 25.8 40.8 26.1 27.5Portugal 15.5 26.9 25.6 16.0 20.4 17.0 24.0Lithuania 14.4 20.8 29.3 21.5 31.5 38.2 26.0Greece 12.2 39.2 50.6 30.7 39.3 19.3 38.5Italy 7.7 37.0 44.6 30.9 33.7 42.6 37.1Poland 7.6 29.3 38.3 33.9 40.0 33.3 24.0Mean 29.2 19.2 22.9 14.6 22.9 19.0 17.2

aScoring (5/6) on index ranging from 0 (poorest quality) to 6 (highest quality).bLower scores on problems 1–6 indicate higher sustainability.

Source: EQLS, 2007.

Su

stain

ab

leC

om

mu

nities?

13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

Eastern European countries (e.g. Slovakia and Latvia), Southern European countries

(France, Spain, Greece and Italy) and Belgium. Turning to specific indicators, air pollution

is a problem for more than a quarter of urban households in eight countries. It is also a

considerable problem in Greece (51%), Italy (45%), France (39%), Poland (38%),

Portugal (26%) and Belgium (23%). Problems with litter or rubbish are also an issue

for a sizable proportion of urban households, especially Hungary (41%) and Poland

(40%) but also Greece (39%), Italy (34%), Ireland (31%) and Belgium (27%). Problems

with crime, violence or vandalism are significant in a number of countries. The worst

case in this regard is Italy (43%). However, it is noteworthy that almost a quarter of

urban households in Ireland and France indicate that they have such problems. Lack of

access to recreational or green space is a problem for a significant proportion of urban

households in some countries. However, it is also a problem for a sizable proportion of

households in Greece (38%), Italy (37%), France (25%) and Portugal (24%). Noise is

of some concern in a number of countries including not only Eastern European ones but

also Greece (39% of households), Italy (37%), Portugal (27%), France (24%) and Spain

(22%). Finally, tap water quality is problematic in many countries, in particular Poland

(34%), Italy (31%) and Greece (31%). However, it is also a cause for some concern in

Hungary (26%), Latvia (26%), France (22%) and Lithuania (22%).

Housing affordability is another crucial aspect of sustainable housing and again there

are very significant differences by country (Table 6). Affordability is not an issue for

the majority of urban households in Denmark, Finland, the UK, Germany, Sweden and

Table 6. Housing affordability, EU (2007) (%)

Country Housing costs not a burdena

Denmark 71.7Finland 57.4UK 56.8Ireland 54.3Germany 54.1Sweden 52.7Spain 45.2Belgium 45.1Netherlands 44.0Austria 40.8Portugal 32.4Slovak Republic 29.0Lithuania 27.7France 22.4Latvia 21.9Italy 21.7Greece 21.3Czech Republic 19.5Hungary 15.7Poland 9.3Mean 37.2

aHigher scores indicate higher sustainability.

Source: EQLS, 2007.

14 N. Winston

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

Ireland. It is more of an issue in Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.

However, housing costs are most burdensome in a number of Eastern European countries

(Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Latvia and Lithuania) but they are also a cause

for some considerable concern in Greece, Italy and France.

4.5 Food Production

Respondents were asked if they grow vegetables or fruit and/or keep poultry or livestock

(Table 7). The first point of note is that this phenomenon is not common in the urban areas

of the countries under consideration. However, there is a clear distinction between the

Eastern and Western countries in the survey, with it being more common in the former

than the latter. It is most common in the Slovak Republic (40%) and least popular in

Ireland (2%). Perhaps not surprisingly, Anderson et al. (2009, p. 12) find that people on

low incomes are much more likely to use this practice than people in the highest

income quartile, with the gap being highest in Eastern European countries and quite

small in Western ones. This leads them to suggest that food production in more affluent

countries is a matter of choice whereas in Eastern European countries it may be more

of a necessity.

Table 7. Food production, EU (2007) (%)

CountryGrowing vegetables or fruit or keeping poultry

or livestocka

SlovakRepublic

39.5

Latvia 31.9Lithuania 24.8Hungary 23.5Poland 17.4Czech

Republic16.9

Belgium 15.2Germany 14.5Austria 12.3UK 10.8Finland 10.5Italy 7.5Portugal 6.5Netherlands 6.2France 6.1Greece 5.9Denmark 4.4Sweden 4.3Spain 3.2Ireland 2.2Mean 13.2

aHigher scores indicate higher sustainability.

Source: EQLS, 2007.

Sustainable Communities? 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GHG emissions vary significantly by country, as revealed in Table 8. Latvia had the lowest

emissions while the Republic of Ireland had the highest. It is notable that those with the

highest emissions are not necessarily the most economically affluent countries and vice

versa as, for example, Sweden has relatively low emissions and, conversely, the Czech

Republic had relatively high emissions.

4.7 Electricity Generated from Renewable Sources

Comparative figures for the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources

(% of gross electricity consumption) reveal two notable leaders in this field (Table 9).

In both Austria (61%) and Sweden (52%) the majority of their electricity consumed is gen-

erated from renewable sources. Most other countries are a long way behind these two and

their policies and practices in this area warrant some attention by policy-makers interested

in sustainable development. Some Eastern European countries are particularly poor on this

indicator (e.g. Poland and Hungary 4%, Lithuania and the Czech Republic 5%) but so too

are some Western European countries like Belgium and the UK (4%).

Table 10 presents a summary of the findings so far, including an average urban sustain-

able housing score for each country obtained by adding together its scores on each of

the dimensions presented in the previous tables and dividing by the number of dimensions

(i.e. nine). This reveals that the “leaders” in terms of sustainable urban housing or

Table 8. Total GHG emissions per capita, EU (2007)

Total GHG Emissionsper capita

GHG sustainability ranking (low emissions ¼ highranking and higher sustainability)

Latvia 5.3 18Sweden 7.2 17Portugal 7.5 16Hungary 7.5 16Lithuania 7.5 16France 8.5 15Slovakia 9.1 14Italy 9.4 13Spain 9.8 12UK 10.5 11Austria 10.5 11Poland 10.7 10Germany 11.9 9Greece 12.1 8Denmark 12.3 7Netherlands 12.6 6Belgium 12.7 5Czech

Republic14.5 4

Finland 14.8 3Ireland 15.8 1

Source: Eurostat (nd) (population and emissions figures).

16 N. Winston

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

communities are Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. However, the Slovak Republic

and Latvia also reveal above average scores suggesting that sustainable housing is also

attainable in much less affluent societies. Each of these countries’ relatively high sustain-

ability score is related to different strengths. For example, by comparison with the other

countries in this analysis, not only Austria’s progress in the use of renewal energy is a

major contributor to its position but it is also well above average in having high-quality

neighbourhoods, higher density housing and mixed-use neighbourhoods. To take

another example, Danish urban housing is significantly above the average in terms of

its affordability and quality but also in terms of the quality of its mixed-use neighbour-

hoods. By contrast, at the other end of the spectrum, Poland has the least sustainable

urban housing according to the dimensions analysed here. Particularly problematic is

the relatively high burden of paying for housing and relatively poor quality neighbour-

hoods. However, it also fares badly on the use of renewables in electricity generation

and the quality of its housing. It is not that surprising to find Poland, and also Hungary,

towards the bottom of the ranking, given the evidence from previous research of very

poor quality housing in some Eastern European countries (Norris & Domanski, 2009)

and of the extent of poverty in many of these locations (Fahey, 2007). The sustainability

of Greece’s urban housing is significantly impeded by poor quality neighbourhoods, pro-

blems with affordability of housing, and comparatively limited progress on the use of

Table 9. Electricity generated from renewable

sources (% of gross electricity consumption), EU

(2007)

CountryElectricity generated from renewable

sources

Austria 60.7Sweden 51.5Latvia 36.4Portugal 29.6Denmark 27.0Finland 25.9Spain 19.5Slovakia

Republic16.6

Germany 14.1Italy 13.3France 13.0Ireland 9.5Greece 6.8Netherlands 6.2UK 4.9Czech Republic 4.7Lithuania 4.6Hungary 4.3Belgium 3.7Poland 3.5

Source: Eurostat (nd).

Sustainable Communities? 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

Table 10. Summary sustainable housing scores, EU (2007)

Mixed-usesummary

index (highscores)

1

Modal split(public

transport)(%)2

Share ofmulti-familydwellings in

totaldwelling

stock3

Households inhigh-quality

dwellings (%)4

High-qualityneighbourhoods

(%)5

Housingcosts not a

burden(%)6

Foodproduction

(%)7

GHGemissions

sustainabilityrank

8

Electricity fromrenewables (%gross electricityconsumption)

9

Meansustainable

housing score[Sum (cols.1–9 4 9)]

Austria 66.3 20.9 52.1 61.3 40.0 40.8 12.3 11 60.7 40.6Denmark 66.8 18.0 38.8 66.8 55.7 71.7 4.4 7 27.0 39.6Sweden 45.7 16.1 51.9 67.6 42.7 52.7 4.3 17 51.5 38.8Finland 50.8 15.0 57.6 65.0 60.8 57.4 10.5 3 25.9 38.4Slovak

Republic50.0 28.0 51.5 67.6 26.4 29.0 39.5 14 16.6 35.8

Germany 46.5 14.3 53.9 67.5 48.0 54.1 14.5 9 14.1 35.8Latvia 51.1 20.6 70.9 36.8 23.3 21.9 31.9 18 36.4 34.5Spain 55.0 19.0 47.5 55.4 23.0 45.2 3.2 12 19.5 31.1Czech

Republic71.7 24.3 56.5 60.0 22.1 19.5 16.9 4 4.7 31.1

Lithuania 74 9.3 61.2 44.4 14.4 27.7 24.8 16 4.6 30.7UK 64.4 11.5 18.7 60.5 37.8 56.8 10.8 11 4.9 30.7Ireland 78.8 16.4 8.6 67.3 34.9 54.3 2.2 1 9.5 30.3Italy 48.2 16.7 74.7 69.6 7.7 21.7 7.5 13 13.3 30.3France 66.0 15.1 43.3 52.8 29.6 22.4 6.1 15 13.0 29.3Netherlands 45.7 13.3 31.1 65.0 45.5 44.0 6.2 6 6.2 29.2Belgium 56.4 20.9 25.1 64.3 20.9 45.1 15.2 5 3.7 28.5Hungary 64.5 38.1 33.6 44.3 16.2 15.7 23.5 16 4.3 28.5Portugal 67.3 14.6 22.6 50.9 15.5 32.4 6.5 16 29.6 28.4Greece 76.3 20.1 40.6 57.2 12.2 21.3 5.9 8 6.8 27.6Poland 59.5 16.4 63.1 47.0 7.6 9.3 17.4 10 3.5 26.0Mean score 60.3 18.4 45.2 58.6 29.2 37.2 13.2 10.6 17.8 32.3

18

N.

Win

ston

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

renewables in electricity generation. Finally, Portugal, despite neighbourhoods scoring

relatively well on the mixed-use index, their poor quality overall was a significant

factor in explaining its overall low rank. In addition, urban housing in Portugal is relatively

low density and below the average in terms of affordability and dwelling quality. It is

interesting to note that not all Eastern European countries are “laggards”. For example,

the Slovak Republic is above the average score largely due to food production, public

transport use, relatively high-quality dwellings, and relatively high residential density.

In addition, Latvia is also above average in terms of sustainable housing, while the

Czech Republic and Lithuania are about average.

5. Conclusions

This paper has examined the sustainability of urban housing in the EU. While acknowled-

ging that the relevant concepts are debated in the literature, it has identified a working defi-

nition of sustainable housing/communities in order to investigate the extent to which they

are in evidence in European urban areas. A combination of data from the EQLS (2007) and

Eurostat and Housing Statistics in the EU are used to examine cross-national comparisons

of the key indicators including: mixed-use developments; residential density; high-quality

dwellings and neighbourhoods; housing affordability; food production; GHG emissions

and renewable energy consumption. The data are not without limitations as some measures

are not available and others refer to the national rather than the urban level. Despite these

shortcomings, the analysis makes a significant contribution to the existing literature as it

presents comparative figures on this important topic.

The paper finds considerable variations between countries in the overall sustainability

of their urban housing and communities. The results reveal that there is significant

room for improvement, even in the “leader” countries (e.g. Austria, Denmark, Sweden

and Finland). However, their relative success deserves additional research in order to

further examine the factors which contribute to their relatively high levels of sustainabil-

ity. Not surprisingly, the results highlight significant problems with housing and commu-

nities in some Eastern European locations, in particular Poland and Hungary. However,

there are also substantial issues in some Southern European countries, such as Greece

and Portugal, and Belgium, the Netherlands and France all reveal below average sustain-

able housing scores. Finally, it is worth noting that many countries fare well on some of the

indicators and badly on others. For example, the Czech Republic scores relatively well in

terms of mixed-use neighbourhoods, public transport use, higher residential dwellings and

food production but has below average scores on the quality of its neighbourhoods,

housing affordability, GHG emissions and renewable energy.

In general, the data highlight a range of problems which detract from the sustainability

of urban housing and from the quality of life of those living in cities. In particular, pro-

blems such as housing affordability, shortage of space and poor neighbourhood quality

(especially air pollution, litter, crime, violence and vandalism) are a cause for some con-

siderable concern in many locations. Progress in relation to renewable energy sources is

also an urgent matter in most countries. In addition to the environmental problems associ-

ated with utilizing non-renewable sources, fuel poverty will become an increasingly

significant problem for those in poorer countries (e.g. Eastern Europe) but also for low-

middle income households in more affluent countries. It is clear from this analysis that

genuine progress on the development of sustainable urban communities will require

Sustainable Communities? 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

considerable economic, social and environmental regeneration of much of our housing and

neighbourhoods. It is essential that this regeneration does not progress independently of

the sustainability agenda, a problem which has been linked to regeneration policies in

many countries (Kennedy & Kennedy, 1997).

Applying the working definition of sustainable communities outlined in this paper to the

cross-national data demonstrates its utility as an analytical tool to differentiate between the

20 EU member states examined here. It also highlights some locations for more detailed

case studies on this topic. For example, a comparison of the “leaders and laggards” could

provide some very useful data for local planning and policy purposes. Of particular interest

would be an examination of the significant drivers of and impediments to sustainability.

Such case studies might utilize multivariate analysis to examine the relative contributions

of the variables analysed here, but in addition could also incorporate additional local level

variables relating to the economy (e.g. employment), society (e.g. social cohesion, social

inequality and Internet access) and the environment (e.g. energy use, car ownership and

use). Furthermore, some attention needs to be given to issues of governance, especially

with regard to planning and housing, a topic which has been identified in a number of

studies as a challenge for sustainable urban development (van Bueren & ten Heuvelhof,

2005; Gualini, 2006; Hartmuth et al., 2008; van Zeijl-Rozema et al., 2008; Somerville

et al., 2009). Overall, research of this type may assist in highlighting where future regen-

eration efforts might best be focused.

References

Allen, C. & Blandy, S. (2004) The Future of City Centre Living: Implications for Urban Policy (London: ODPM).

Allen, J., Barlow, J., Leal, J., Maloutas, T. & Padovani, L. (2004) Housing and Welfare in Southern Europe

(London: Blackwell).

Anderson, R., Mikulic, B., Vermeylen, G., Lyly-Yrjanainen, M. & Zigante, V. (2009) Second European Quality

of Life Survey: An Overview (Dublin: European Foundation for Living and Working Conditions).

Barker, K. (2004) Review of Housing Supply—Final Report—Recommendations (London: HMSO).

Barton, H. (Ed.) (2000) Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods, 2nd ed. (London:

Earthscan).

Bhatti, M. (1993) From consumers to prosumers: Housing for a sustainable future, Housing Studies, 8(2), pp. 98–108.

Bhatti, M. (2001) Housing/futures? The challenge from environmentalism, Housing Studies, 16(1), pp. 39–52.

Bhatti, M. & Dixon, A. (2003) Introduction to special focus: Housing, environment and sustainability, Housing

Studies, 18(4), pp. 501–504.

Bhatti, M., Brooke, J. & Gibson, M. (Eds) (1994) Housing and the Environment—A New Agenda (Coventry:

Chartered Institute of Housing).

Bramley, G. & Power, S. (2009) Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density and housing type,

Environment and Planning B, 36(1), pp. 30–48.

Brown, T. & Bhatti, M. (2003) Whatever happened to ‘housing and the environment’?, Housing Studies, 18(4),

pp. 505–515.

Brunick, N. & Webster, J. (2003) Inclusionary Zoning: A Policy that Works for the City that Works (Chicago, IL:

BPI—Regional Affordable Housing Initiative).

van Bueren, E. & ten Heuvelhof, E. (2005) Improving governance arrangements in support of sustainable cities,

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(1), pp. 47–66.

Burns, T., Byron, D. & Kick, E. (1997) Position in the world-system and national emissions of greenhouse gases,

Journal of World-Systems Research, 3(3), pp. 432–466.

Carley, M. & Christie, I. (1992) Managing Sustainable Development (London: Earthscan).

Couch, C., Karecha, J. & Henning, R. (2005) Decline and sprawl: An evolving type of urban development

observed in Liverpool and Leipzig, European Planning Studies, 13(1), pp. 117–136.

Edwards, B. & Turrent, D. (Eds) (2000) Sustainable Housing – Principles & Practice (London: E & FN Spon).

20 N. Winston

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

Ellis, G., Motherway, B., Neill, W. & Hand, U. (2004) Towards a Green Isle? Local Sustainable Development on

the Island of Ireland (Armagh: Centre for Cross Border Studies).

EU Ministers (2007) Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (Leipzig: European Union).

Eurostat (nd) Sustainable Development, Climate Change and Energy. Statistics Explained. Available at http://epp.

eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Sustainable_development_-_Climate_change_and_energy

(accessed January 2013).

Fahey, T. (2007) The case for an EU-wide measure of poverty, European Sociological Review, 23(1), pp. 35–47.

Federcasa (2006) Housing Statistics in the European Union 2005/6 (Rome: Federcasa and Ministry of Infrastruc-

ture of the Italian Republic).

van der Flier, K. & Thomson, A. (2006) Life cycle of dwellings and demolition by Dutch housing associations, in:

V. Van Gruis, H. Visscher & R. Kleinhans (Eds) Sustainable Neighbourhood Transformation, pp. 23–41

(Amsterdam: Delft University Press/IOS Press).

Gallent, N., Madeddu, M. & Mace, A. (2010) Internal housing space standards in Italy and England, Progress in

Planning, 74, pp. 1–52.

Gilchrist, A. (2002) Design for living: The challenge of sustainable communities, in: H. Barton (Ed.) Sustainable

Communities: The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods, 2nd ed., pp. 147–159 (London: Earthscan).

Gkartzios, M. & Scott, M. (2010) Countering counterurbanisation: Spatial planning challenges in a dispersed city

region, the Greater Dublin Area, Town Planning Review, 81(1), pp. 23–52.

Godschalk, D. (2004) Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development

and liveable communities, Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), pp. 5–13.

Green, G., Grimsley, M. & Stafford, B. (2005) The Dynamics of Neighbourhood Sustainability (York: Joseph

Rowntree Foundation).

Gualini, E. (2006) The rescaling of governance in Europe: New spatial and institutional rationals, European Plan-

ning Studies, 14(7), pp. 881–904.

Gurran, N. (2008) Affordable housing: A dilemma for metropolitan planning? Urban Policy and Research, 26(1),

pp. 101–110.

Hall, P. & Pfeiffer, U. (2000) Urban Future 21: A Global Agenda for Twenty-First Century Cities (London: Spon

Press).

Hall, M. & Purchase, D. (2006) Building or bodging? Attitudes to sustainability in UK public sector housing

construction development, Sustainable Development, 14(3), pp. 205–218.

Hartmuth, G., Huber, K. & Rink, D. (2008) Operationalization and contextualisation of sustainability at the local

level, Sustainable Development, 16(5), pp. 261–270.

Hopkins, R. (2000) The food producing neighbourhood, in: H. Barton (Ed.) Sustainable Communities: The Poten-

tial for Eco-Neighbourhoods, pp. 199–215. 2nd ed. (London: Earthscan).

Howe, J. & Wheeler, P. (1999) Urban food growing: The experience of two UK cities, Sustainable Development,

7(1), pp. 13–24.

Howley, P. (2009) Attitudes towards compact city policy: Towards a greater understanding of residential behav-

iour, Land Use Policy, 26(1), pp. 792–798.

Huby, M. (1998) Social Policy and the Environment (Buckingham: Open University Press).

Jacobs, M. (1995) Sustainable development, capital substitution and economic humility: A response to Becker-

man, Environmental Values, 4(1), pp. 57–68.

de Jonge, T. (2005) Cost Effectiveness of Sustainable Housing Investments (Delft: Delft University Press).

Jorgenson, A. (2003) Consumption and environmental degradation: A cross-national analysis of the ecological

footprint, Social Problems, 50(3), pp. 374–394.

Jorgenson, A. (2004) Uneven processes and environmental degradation in the world-economy, Human Ecology

Review, 11(2), pp. 103–113.

Kennedy, M. & Kennedy, D. (Eds) (1997) Designing Ecological Settlements (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlay).

Kenworthy, J. (2006) The eco-city: Ten key transport and planning dimensions of sustainable city development,

Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), pp. 67–85.

Klunder, G. (2005) Sustainable Solutions for Dutch Housing. Reducing the Environmental Impact of New and

Existing Houses (Delft: Delft University Press).

Lafferty, W. & Coenen, F. (2001) Conclusions and perspectives, in: W. Lafferty (Ed.) Sustainable Communities

in Europe (London: Earthscan).

Lock, D. (2000) Housing and transport, in: B. Edwards & D. Turrent (Eds) Sustainable Housing: Principles and

Practices, pp. 36–42 (London: Taylor and Francis).

Sustainable Communities? 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

Long, D. & Hutchins, M. (2003) A Toolkit of Indicators of Sustainable Communities. European Institute for

Urban Affairs (Liverpool: Liverpool John Moors University).

Lowe, S. & Tsenkova, S. (Eds) (2003) Housing Change in East and Central Europe: Integration or Fragmenta-

tion? (Aldershot: Ashgate).

Mace, A., Gallent, N., Hall, P., Porsch, L., Braun, R. & Pfeiffer, U. (2005) Shrinking to Grow? The Urban Regen-

eration Challenge in Leipzig and Manchester (London: Institute of Community Studies).

Mace, A., Hall, P. & Gallent, N. (2007) New East Manchester: Urban renaissance or urban opportunism? Euro-

pean Planning Studies, 15(1), pp. 51–65.

Newman, P. (1996) Reducing automobile dependence, Environment and Urbanization, 8(1), pp. 67–92.

Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. (2000) Sustainable urban form: The big picture, in: K. Williams, K. Burton & M.

Jenks (Eds) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, pp. 109–120 (London: E & FN Spon).

Norman, J., Maclean, H. & Kennedy, C. (2006) Comparing high and low residential density: Life-cycle analysis of

energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 132(1), pp. 10–22.

Norris, M. & Domanski, H. (2009) Housing conditions, states, markets and households: A pan-European analysis,

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(3), pp. 385–407.

Norris, M. & Winston, N. (2011) Housing wealth, debt and stress before, during and after the Celtic Tiger, in:

R. Forrest & Y. Ngai-Ming (Eds) Housing Markets and the Global Financial Crisis, pp. 74–92 (Chelten-

ham: Edward Elgar).

ODPM (2005) Sustainable Communities: People, Places, and Prosperity (London: ODPM).

O’Riordan, T. & Voisey, H. (1998) The Transition to Sustainability: The Politics of Agenda 21 (London: Earth-

scan).

Paris, C. (2010) Affluence, Mobility and Second Home Ownership (London: Routledge).

Pickerill, J. & Maxey, L. (2009) Geographies of sustainability: Low impact developments and radical spaces of

innovation, Geography Compass, 3(4), pp. 1515–1539.

Priemus, H. (2005) How to make housing sustainable? The Dutch experience, Environment and Planning B:

Planning and Design, 32(1), pp. 5–19.

Priemus, H. & ten Heuvelhof, E. (2005) The long way to sustainable housing areas, Environment and Planning B:

Planning and Design, 32(1), pp. 1–3.

Redclift, M. (1987) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions (London: Routledge).

Roberts, A. (2003) Privatization and rent deregulation in Eastern Europe, in: S. Lowe & S. Tsenkova (Eds)

Housing Change in East and Central Europe: Integration or Fragmentation?, pp. 45–63 (Aldershot:

Ashgate).

Roberts, T. & Grimes, P. (2002) World-system theory and the environment: Toward a new synthesis, in:

R. Dunlap, F. Buttel, P. Dickens & A. Gijswijt (Eds) Sociological Theory and the Environment: Clas-

sical Foundations, Contemporary Insights, pp. 167–196 (Rowman & Littlefield).

Schoon, N. (2001) The Chosen City (London: Spon Press).

Seyfang, G. (2008) Grassroots innovations in low-carbon housing. CSERGE Working Paper ECM 08-05.

Seyfang, G. & Hazeltine, A. (2010) Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-based

social movements for sustainable energy transitions. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 10-08.

Somerville, P., Van Beckhoven, E. & Van Kempen, R. (2009) The decline and rise of neighbourhoods: The

importance of neighbourhood governance, International Journal of Housing Policy, 9(1), pp. 25–44.

Stead, N. (2000) Unsustainable settlements, in: H. Barton (Ed.) Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-

Neighbourhoods, pp. 29–39. 2nd ed. (London: Earthscan).

Tosics, I. (2004) European urban development: Sustainability and the role of housing, Journal of Housing and the

Built Environment, 19(1), pp. 67–90.

Turcu, C. (2009) In the quest of sustainable communities: A theoretical framework to assess the impact of urban

regeneration, in: S. Tsenkova (Ed.) Planning Sustainable Communities: Diversity of Approaches and Imple-

mentational Challenges, pp. 37–66 (Calgary: University of Calgary).

Tuxworth, B. (2001) Local Agenda 21: From the Margins to the Mainstream, and Out to Sea? (London: TCPA).

UNCED (1992) Agenda 21 (New York: UN).

Wheeler, S. (2004) Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable, and Ecological Communities

(Oxon: Routledge).

Whitehead, C. (2006) The Density Debate: A Personal View. Paper Presented at the LSE London Density Debate

19 June 2006 (London: London School of Economics).

Williams, K. & Dair, C. (2007) What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by sta-

keholders in delivering sustainable development, Sustainable Development, 15(3), pp. 135–147.

22 N. Winston

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013

Winston, N. (2007) From boom to bust? An assessment of the impact of sustainable development policies on

housing in the Republic of Ireland, Local Environment, 12(1), pp. 57–71.

Winston, N. (2009) Urban Regeneration for sustainable development: The role of sustainable housing? European

Planning Studies, 17(12), pp. 1781–1796.

Winston, N. (2010) Urban regeneration and housing: Challenges for the sustainable development of Dublin,

Sustainable Development, 18(6), pp. 319–330.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future (Oxford: Oxford

University Press).

Worpole, K. (2003) The social dynamic, in: P. Neal (Ed.) Urban Villages and the Making of Communities,

pp. 119–131 (London: Spon Press).

Worpole, K. & Knox, K. (2007) The Social Value of Public Spaces. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available at

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/social-value-public-spaces (accessed 1 June 2011).

York, R., Rosa, E. & Dietz, T. (2003) A rift in modernity? Assessing the anthropogenic sources of global climate

change with the STIRPAT model, lnternational Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(10), pp. 31–51.

van Zeijl-Rozema, A., Corvers, R., Kemp, R. & Martens, P. (2008) Governance for sustainable development: A

framework, Sustainable Development, 16(6), pp. 410–421.

Sustainable Communities? 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge D

ublin

] at

04:

08 1

9 A

pril

2013