Sustainable neighbourhoods—a qualitative model for resource management in communities

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING

ELSEVIER

Landscape

and Urban Planning

39 (1997)

1I7- 135

a qualitative model for resource Sustainable neighbourhoodsmanagement in communities Per G. Berg Department

*,

Gunnel Nycander

of Landscape Planning, Ultuna, Swedish Uniuersity of Agriculture,

’

PO Box 7012, Uppsala SE-750 07, Sweden

Abstract The need to improve the management of natural and societal resources in communities is becoming increasingly evident to urban planners in the Nordic countries. In this paper we propose a qualitative model that can help us understand the concept of sustainability from a neighbourhood perspective. Starting points in our analysis are five general conditions for survival characteristic to all living systems. Sustainability in human communities is further influenced by the individual’s basic needs and preferences. We argue that the neighbourhood level is especially suited for a thorough discussion on sustainability in communities in general. We define six types of valuable resources that need to be managed properly to maintain sustainability and resilience in any community: natural, individual, social, historical, organisational and economic resources. 0 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. Keywords:

Sustainability;

Neighbourhood;

Community

1. Introduction Environmental problems have shifted from the local scale to regional and global levels (WCED, 1987). The sources of difficulty have turned into a diffuse and complex exhaust dilemma, caused by millions of minute consumer actions. Therefore, the global search for solid principles of sustainable resource management continues. Today we know that actions used to curb the environmental crisis also encompass community

* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 46- 1g-67-25- 13; fax: + 46- 1867-35-12; e-mail: [email protected] ’ Present address is Ministry of Environment, Unit 8, SE-103 33 Stockholm, Sweden. 0169-2046/97/$17.00 0 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII SO169-2046(97)00050-9

planning. Agenda 21 from the Rio summit has already triggered new planning efforts in most Swedish cities and towns (Mlnsson, 1992). Swedish researchers and planners have until now put particular emphasis on the cycling of waste and natural resources and also on renewable energy and energy conservation. Energy issues have been thoroughly analysed in Sweden since the mid-seventies (Lonnroth et al., 1980). Many such studies have been carried out on a national basis (Johnson, 1991; Fischer, 1992) and on a house level (Bokalders, 1992). This is also often the case for other sociotechnical systems. At present, the focus of interest is slowly turning towards other factors influencing the management of the physical environment, i.e., social, organisational

118

P.G. Berg, G. Nycander/Landscape

and economic resources. However, to understand the links between these resources in town planning, the discussion needs to focus more on other scales, like the neighbourhood (Alterman and Cars, 1991; Franz&n and Sandstedt, 1993), the landscape (McHarg, 1969) and sometimes also the nature-regional or global scales (Goldemberg et al., 1988; Lovelock, 1989; Eddy et al., 1991). The nature-regional perspective has become increasingly important for managing and regulating global environmental issues. The landscape level is interesting as a basic unit for understanding how to cope with nourishment and waste-recycling in cities and regions (McHarg, 1969; Odum, 1989; Orrskog, 1993; M%nsson, 1993). In this paper, we argue that the neighbourhood perspective can help us in analysing and describing the qualitative mechanisms of a sustainable community resource management. It can also help us to better understand the interplay between natural and cultural resources (Svedin, 1992). We focus largely on the situation in Sweden, although the analysis schemes and most suggested actions are presumed to be of interest to human communities in general. Kevin Lynch discussed the complexity of community in his book ‘The Good City Form’ (Lynch, 1981) where he used qualitative concepts like contact with nature, balance, esthetic attraction, order and diversity. A conclusion from Lynch’s work is, however, that we need to cross-relate more basic human knowledge from various fields-natural science, social science and the humanities-to be able to understand the mechanisms of community’s sustainable functions and processes. Thus, when we analyse sustainable neighbourhoods in this paper, we use basic concepts from natural sciences that define sustainability in living systems. We also try to pinpoint basic human needs that, according to selected fundamentals in social science, need to be fulfilled to accomplish sustainability in human communities. The prime objective of this paper is to provide solid arguments for the sustainable neighbourhood as a dynamic concept. Today’s universal technology and planning can in the future be expected to be replaced by a diversity of site- and situation-specific solutions. This would in turn result in a multitude of community designs, all in their unique way contributing to a world-wide sustainable development.

and Urban Planning 39 (1997)

117-135

2. Methods 2.1. A conceptual hoods

model for sustainable

neighbour-

Sustainability in human living systems rests, according to our hypothesis, on two equally important conditions: The resilience and sustainability of nature on the one hand and of man’s culture on the other. Resilience in natural ecosystems is extensively described by Holling (1986) and Odum (1989). Natural ecosystems as well as man’s agroecosystems survives in a long-term perspective only if five fundamental conditions can be fulfilled. Living systems in general must manage its: nourishment, heredity, maintenance of its boundaries, evolution and cybernetic control (Villee et al., 1985; Odum, 1989; Berg, 1990). Homo sapiens culture is so complex that resilience conditions that apply for living systems in general, must also be complemented in the human communities by fulfilling individuals’ needs and preferences. Within the field of economics, conditions for sustainability of society has been discussed by e.g., Daly (1990) and Pearce and Turner (1990). Human basic needs with regard to nourishment were derived from human ecology (Young, 1983; Tengstrom, 1985). The human need of good health and well-being was discussed in relation to applied social medicine (Antonovsky, 1987; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Grahn, 1991). The basic human need of cultural reproduction is defined towards the background of a recent historic discussion on the civil society (Etzioni, 1993; Putnam, 1995). The need for boundary management in human cultures was analysed partly as an aspect of human territoriality (Malmberg, 1980) and partly in terms of outdoor sociology (Gehl, 1980). The need for community evolution in an appropriate speed was derived from established historical evidence (Ellul, 1964; Hyams, 1976; Braudel, 1979) and from a future study by Toffler (1970). The need for control in human societies was mainly discussed in a common property theory perspective (Ostrom, 1990). Neighbourhoods were defined as in the book A Language Pattern by Alexander et al. (1977). In general, they are small communities, mostly less than 300-500 people in urban areas (often less than

P.G. Berg, G. h$cander/

Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (19971 I 17-135

100-200 in non-dense Nordic countries-authors’ comment), with their own identity. They are limited to a specific geographical area and have no major roads running through them. Other general and fundamental properties are that its inhabitants are known to each other and that a common consciousness exists among them on the extension and boundaries of the neighbourhood. The social life of the neighbourhood is further characterised by its multitude of simple and at the same time vulnerable relations between its inhabitants. In that respect neighbourhood relations are comparable to weak mutualism or commensalism in natural ecosystems. Both terms are used by population ecologists to designate interspecies relations that are advantageous to both species (mutualism) or beneficial to one species and indifferent to the other (commensalism) (Odum, 1971). Each of these relations are weak and mainly of little importance as long as they are regarded in isolation. Together they potentially constitute strong social resources contributing to the feeling of security and well-being in a community. A large number of inter-neighbour relations thus tend to become fundamental for the social sustainability of any a neighbourhood (Gehl, 1980; Berglund and Jergeby, 1989). Our conceptual model is formulated and defined with two main objectives: firstly to understand SUStainability in communities and secondly to outline a scheme of action which improves it.

3. Results

and discussion

In order to understand sustainability in neighbourhoods, a set of fundamental conditions for living systems in general, and for fulfilling human needs in particular, was formulated. These natural and cultural conditions set the framework for sustainability in any community (Fig. 1). The design of a community can, however, also be modified when new knowledge is adapted and when major societal trends are considered. The analysis scheme, as represented in Fig. 1, summarises the basic conditions of sustainability and factors that will modify the outline of a neighbourhood. To understand each community’s unique qualities, we furthermore need to understand its site- and situation-specific properties. Such properties can

119

rarely be analysed without inventing the site’s physical conditions properly or without receiving information from the inhabitants of a community on its demographic and social characteristics. The second part of the model provides a basis for an operational inventory procedure that may help us elucidate the status of a neighbourhood’s resources (Fig. 2). The inventory will eventually reveal deficits or surpluses in resources that are vital for the sustainable function of any community. This inventory will in turn produce a basis for suggestions of supplementing deficient resources in order to achieve sustainability. 3.1. Vital conditional processes for all living systems To sustain molecular, cellular and macrobiologito continue to survive-every cal patterns-i.e., conceivable living system must be able to handle at least five elementary conditions (Villee et al., 1985; Odum, 1989; Berg, 1990). Firstly, living systems must be able to support themselves (nutrients for metabolism and growth). To be sustainable, the living system and its support system must recycle all resources, be able to conserve its physiological balance (to preserve its health) and depend solely on renewable energy sources. The support condition also relies on the fulfilment of the four other conditions. Secondly, living systems need control mechanisms to convey material and information within the system. Living systems are thus always equipped with biological infrastructure and cybernetic control, ultimately operated by the genetic material in cell nuclei. Thirdly, living systems always put major efforts to reproduce themselves. The inheritance system is based on the genetic code which guarantees both variation of form and conservation of function in all living systems. Fourthly, living systems are characterised by their boundary maintenance. Boundaries of living systems are needed for preserving identity of cells, organisms and ecosystems. But the boundary can never be totally rigid. The boundary must also serve as an exchange point, a communication forum for interchanging genes, cell nutrients and different species in natural ecosystems.

120

P.G. Berg, G. N~cander/L~~nd~cqw

The fifth and last elementary condition to fulfil for living systems is that they have an ability to adapt to changes. Continuous change is the prevailing principle for all living structures: growth, matur-

and Urban Planning

39 (1997) 117-135

ing, increase organisms and regard to the living systems

of complexity is the rule in cells, ecosystems. A restriction exists with fifth condition: to be able to adapt, must experience an appropriate speed

NATURE

Vital processes

CULTURE

in all living systems

Vital humanneeds in

Nourishment Reproduction Boundary Maintenance Systems evolution and adaption Cybernetic control

Food, shelter and health Cultural reproduction Forum, exchange and identity Community evolution and adaption Community government and management

qve the tramewwkfor sustainability and determine

COMMUNITYSTRUCTUREAND FUNCTION

Essential factors modifyingcommunities

Major

cultural systems

I

Essentialfactors influencingthe possibilitiesto fulfil humanneeds

transformative forces The Environmental Crisis

Major transformafive Knowledge Technology Politics Values systems Economy

forces

\, Natural

science and technology Basic Physics, Chemistry, Thermodynamics Ecology

Place properties Hydrogeological conditions Environmental conditions Climatic conditions

Social .sc/ence Historical experience Experience of social groups Experience of individuals

Biology

Place and situation properties Place in urban or rural context Cultural context Social context Urban structural density

--\

\,

0

DIVERSITY

OF NEIGHBOURHOOD

+

t

STRATEGIES

Fig. 1. Analysis of general properties for sustainability in neighbourhoods. This scheme can in principle be adapted in any scale of community. Regions, cities, towns, suburbs, neighbourhoods, house-clusters and single houses must all in some way fulfil the vital conditions for life and human basic needs to be sustainable. The modifying factors demonstrate that conditions and design for sustainability can have a multitude of different physical and organisational expressions in time and space. The scheme also gives a basis for the derivation of resources that are needed for sustainability in communities.

P.G. Berg, G. Nycander/L.unducape

and Urban Planning

of change. If there is too low or too high a speed in the changing process, the living system is threatened by collapse. All five conditions must thus be fulfilled to secure sustainability in any living system. Culture’s ecosystems (agriculture, meadows and forests) must probably meet the same fundamental demands as those of ‘natural’ living systems. In that case, however, human beings constitute an active controlling part of the ecosystem. It can be argued that these five conditions, to

VITAL CONDITIONS AND HUMAN NEEDS...

39 (1997) 117-135

121

some extent, are also applicable, as one point of entry in the planning of man’s cities and villages. In the human culture, however, conditions are much more complex and mysterious. Since there is both a cultural and a biological aspect of Homo sapiens, human communities must satisfy both the general conditions for living systems and a set of human needs, which are in part culturally conditioned. There are many ways to describe and analyse human needs (Heller, 1985; Max-Neef, 1989). In this study, we have chosen to categorise needs in analogy with the

. . ..co~flEsPo~D TO MEASURABLECO~MJNITY RESOURCES

nourishment (food, shelter, health) control (government and management)

0

Natural resources

nourishment (food, shelter, health) control (government and management)

D

Economic resources

reproduction (cultural inheritance) evolution (communiiy change and adaption), control (government and management)

D

Individual resources

reproduction (cultural inheritance) evolution (community change and adaption), control (government and management)

D

Social resources

reproduction (cultural inheritance) evolution (community change and adaption)

0

Historical resources

boundary maintenance (forum, exchange and identity) _D control (government and management)

Organisational resources

1

INVENTORY OF NEIGHBOURHOOD RESOURCES

COMPLEMENTARY NEEDS OF A NEIGHBOURHOOD Fig. 2. First vital resources in a general neighbourhood are defined. These resources are derived from the vital conditions of living systems and from basic human needs. After that an inventory of resources in existing neighbourhoods is carried out. This will help us identify complementary needs for achieving sustainability in a neighbourhood.

122

P.G. Berg, G. Nycander / Landscape

biological conditions, since we believe this method sheds new light on the discussion on needs related to sustainability, and since it facilitates the effort to integrate natural and social science perspectives in the analysis. 3.2. Basic human needs and preferences At the human, individual level, we talk about needs, rather than vital conditional processes that can be applied for living systems in general. Needs cannot, however, be defined objectively or in an unambiguous way. Economists circumvent the problem by discarding the concept of needs, while basing their theories on individual preferences, expressed as willingness to pay. In this study, we thus relate the discussion on fundamental human needs to the basics of human ecology (Young, 1983; Tengsttiim, 19851 that are relevant in a long term perspective and only to a small extent to the preferences of individuals. The latter are often expressed as choices in concrete situations, and should be respected as such. All human needs may not, of course, be fulfilled at the neighbourhood level. Our hypothesis is, however, that the neighbourhood perspective can help us discovet important aspects of human needs as well as of natural resource sustainability. 3.2.1. Food, shelter and health In communities, such as neighbourhoods, the first basic physiological need is nourishment. Basic material needs ate culturally conditioned and are different in different parts of the world. Necessary food and shelter is for instance different in countries close to the equator compared to sites near the poles. On the neighbourhood level, all its members must be provided with food, fiber, fuel and shelter. This can be organised on the local village scale or constitute a small stream of the large flows of food, energy and material that run through a big city. At the neighbourhood level the amounts of materials and water are apprehendable, and the sources of the material streams and waste are possible to identify. Material consumption and waste production per 100-300 people ate useful figures when wanting to elucidate representative mean values for individuals as well as to extrapolate e.g., the neighbourhood consumption of water to rough estimates for whole towns and cities.

and Urban Planning

39 (I 997) I1 7-135

3.2.2. Gradients of health One fundamental aspect of the first basic need is the maintenance of health. The hygienic aspect of health relates to basic knowledge, traditional experience and practical relationships with our invisible allies: the microbial world (Dixon, 1976). Other facets of health deal with man’s experience of context in his and her everyday life. Aaron Antonovsky (1987) has described the connection between an individual’s health status and his or her ability to handle, to see meaning in and to understand various aspects of life and the everyday environment. The positive health value of contacts with nature for most human beings has been documented by e.g., Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) and by Gtahn (199 1). Our experience and hypothesis is that all these aspects of health, are relevant to-and can preferably be studied at-the neighbourhood level. 3.2.3. Cultural reproduction Man as well as other living creatures must teptoduce its genes. The human species has, however, acquired a mote complex heritage task than other species. Apart from the genetic heritage, the older humans must also in various ways depict its culture to the younger. Cultural man uses distinctive methods to copy language, manual skills, technical sciences, music and fine arts to every new generation (Putnam, 1995). Each human culture must also be able to present ways and occasions where human beings can transfer rules, social abilities, practices and everyday experiences to other human beings in communities (Etzioni, 1993). Human communities must furthermore be organised in time and space so that myths can be told and traditions can be demonstrated to its new citizens (Ptohansky and Fabian, 1987). Every human community must be organised so that its inhabitants can participate in this cultural reproduction, preferably all the way down to the neighbourhood level (Engwicht, 1992; Berg, 1993; Berg and Livsey, 1995). The neighbouthood may be considered as one natural starting point to many reproductive activities: upbringing, lower education and basic practice. The small community may be the most important place for children’s play, youngsters’ first love and for everyday practical cooperation, through which the fundamentals of social behaviout

P. G. Berg, G. Nycander/ Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (I 997) I 17-135

are transferred within the community and generations.

between

ages

3.2.4. Forum, exchange and identity Any community must nurse its cultural boundaries. At the individual level, the territorial boundaries have great impact on health and self-reliance. These boundaries are both physical and psychological (Malmberg, 1980). They define personal integrity and identity. On the community scale various boundaries exist between houses and streets, between shops and streets, between apartment and villa areas and between the built environment and the green environment (Gehl, 1980). Both at the individual scale and at the neighbourhood level, it is important to stress that the zones between a person’s territory and something else-somebody else’s territory or common land-are not only barriers: fences, doors and walls. They also represent fora or meeting-places, where individuals or members of the community may encounter and listen to other people and their experiences. These fora are represented by pavements, common green areas, lanes, parks, squares and market places. The neighbourhood scale is well suited for the study of fora, common places and human individual and social territories. 3.2.5. Community evolution and adaption Communities must grow or evolve in some way (Ellul, 1964; Max-Neef, 1989; Ostrom, 1990). The obvious reason is that the surrounding world is evolving all the time. If a community does not change it may demographically grow older, its inhab itants may eventually not know how to handle changes imposed on the community from the outside world, and-perhaps most important of all-its people may not experience any contrast, and thus not perceive that they are taking part in a living process. The transformation of a community must thus not happen too slowly, but changes must not be allowed to happen too fast either. If a community changes too quickly there is a high risk that people will experience a future shock, a societal phenomenon explicitly described by Toffler (1970). Change and adaptive behaviour of a specific community can be studied at the neighbourhood level. We strongly believe that individuals at this level may be observed with regard to their adaptive capacity and willingness to handle change.

123

3.2.6. Key control needs: mobility and rootedness One of the most complicated needs of civilised man concerns control and management of life in communities. All communities need to have control mechanisms for the flow in time and space of goods and waste and also to regulate routines for the transportation of people (Daly and Cobb, 1990). Hence, time-table logistics, communication equipment and physical infrastructure are key control functions of any society (Sylwan, 1992). The infrastructure we choose for communities is, however, related to two human facets of the same need: mobility and rootedness (Weil, 1955; Berg and Livsey, 1995). Human body and mind are dependent on physical movement and perceptional variation: we have a need to exercise, labour and travel (British Museum, 1981; Berg, 1993). At the same time the human body and mind need to rest and to nurture a homestead: we need places to recognise, resting spots where we can reflect and starting points for growth and maturing (Winnicott, 1971; Prohansky and Fabian, 1987). The object would thus be to satisfy both our dual needs: mobility and rootedness. One key question for the neighbourhood level will therefore be: what community efforts are spent to create and manage distant infrastructure (airlines, intercity-rail and freeways)-as compared to organising local infrastructure for neighbourhoods? Local mobility is promoted by the building of i.a. small roads and tramways, walking and cycling paths, local connections of roads, local telecommunications and nearby meeting places on common land. But communities are not solely controlled through the use of local and distant physical infrastructure. Government, laws and regulations as well as individual’s informal and implied rules, represent strong controlling forces-also visible at the neighbourhood level. 3.2.7. Government, markets and social self-organisation There are three conceivable basic management principles for communities that run parallel in society: planning, market and social self-organisation, the latter which, we believe, has been overlooked or discouraged to a large extent (Bromley, 1992; Daly and Cobb, 1990). Social self-organisation can under certain circumstances be efficient-at least in a nar-

124

P.G. Berg, G. Nycander/Landscclpe

row sense (Ostrom, 1990). It nurtures the development of social webs, particularly at a neighbourhood level. Common efforts to solve common problems can also be considered to contribute to moral development at an individual level (Etzioni, 1993). A historical analysis of organised helpfulness in local networks and of civil solidarity even implies that these phenomena encourage development of community’s overall economy (Putnam, 19951. As a starting point, we assume that social relations in neighbourhoods-which are more casual than relationships between friends or relatives, but nevertheless important-must build on a material basis to be sustained. People who have to solve common and concrete problems and carry out common, practical tasks can be assumed to get to know each other better than people who vaguely feel they want to know their neighbours better. The public, private and common spheres in neighbourhoods can be seen as physical expressions of planning, market and social self-organisation. Here again the local common sphere has diminished during the postwar period. The private sphere has expanded substantially in the industrialised countries the last few decades through larger apartments, more appliances and more time devoted to, for example, television viewing. This development allows us to lead a larger part of our otherwise social life in privacy. On the other hand, the influence of the official society in our day-to-day life has also increased. Especially in the Nordic countries, more women work outside the family, childhood is more structured and organised than earlier, and people rely to a larger extent on governmental help to solve social or economic problems. All of this is reflected in large areas of the townscape devoted to public activities. Less time and space is thus left for casual contacts and practical cooperation with neighbours. Yet the need for social exchange prevails: children and elderly are to a very large extent dependent on their immediate physical surroundings as well as wellknown neighbours and friends in the vicinity of their homes (Nordstrom, 1994). What is the basis for a revitalisation of social self-organisation, common spheres-i.e., of social life in neighbourhoods? In this complex discussion, we would like to focus on two important factors:

and Urban Planning

39 (1997)

117-135

First, information technology allows for a growing number of people to work-full-time or more probably part-time-in or near their homes (Toffler, 1980; Ewerman, 1992) and thus spend more time in the neighbourhood. It is important to study the social effects of this technical development. Possibly this trend will lead to a questioning of zoning restrictions (that for instance aggravate the integration of residential and working areas), and in the end to a general re-integration of different functions in our communities. Secondly, there is a need to improve on the design and management of semiprivate and common areas, such as parks, entrances and common yards and other potential common property (Gehl, 1980). 3.2.8. On developing neighbourhoods

a common property

theory for

The management regimes in communities that were discussed above are related to, but also distinct from, property rights. Just as planning and market are the dominant management principles, socialisation or privatisation of property have been the dominant policies in our societies for a long time. Many resources, however, fall in between the limits of ownership, notably environmental resources, but also social values (Etzioni, 1993). The shortcomings of private as well as centralised ownership have spurred a growing interest in alternative property right systems (Ostrom, 1990; Bromley, 1992; McCay, 1987). Institutions for management of commonly owned, local environmental resources have largely been eroded in the last few centuries, especially in the western world, but vital examples still exist to learn from. In examining some of these resource management systems-many in developing countries-Ostrom (1990) has defined a number of designing principles, common to institutions through which communities have managed commonly owned resources sustainably for centuries. The central elements of these principles are enumerated. (1) ‘Clearly defined boundaries.’ Individuals or households with rights to withdraw resource units from the common property and the boundaries of the common property right itself are clearly defined. (2) ‘Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions.’ Appropriation rules

P.G. Berg, G. Nwander / Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (I 9971 I I7- 135

restricting time, place, technology and/or quantity of resource units are related to local conditions and to provision rules requiring labour, material and/or money. (3) ‘Collective choice arrangements.’ Most individuals affected by operational rules can participate in modifying these rules. (4) ‘Monitoring.’ Monitors, who actively survey common property conditions and appropriator behaviour, are accountable to the appropriators and/or are the appropriators themselves. (5) ‘Graduated sanctions.’ Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to receive graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense). (6) ‘Conflict resolution mechanisms.’ Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost, local arenas to resolve conflict among appropriators or between appropriators and officials. (7) ‘Minimal recognition of rights to organise.’ The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities. At the neighbourhood level there are several buildings, functions and places which potentially could be managed as commonly owned resources: e.g., community houses, laundries, technical equipment, playgrounds, parks, gardens, ponds, streams and yards. In what way can the mentioned community-control principles contribute to Scandinavian neighbourhoods? Beside the above mentioned international studies on common property management, there are also some Swedish traditions to draw from: i.a. cooperative housing and right of common access to natural and cultural landscapes. 3.2.9. Human contradictor\: needs? The basic needs of Homo sapiens result in many seemingly contradictory demands on the city planner. The reasons are that human beings like many other mammals in the living and growing process change between different equally important but contradictory states. Our own species has often been designated as a collective creature, a tribe- or pack-animal (Trivers, 1985). At the same time, our urbanised culture has exposed the individual properties of human nature (Malmberg, 1980).

125

Human beings have a certain need to sometimes experience stress- or response-to-danger situations (Lorentz, 1967; British Museum, 1981), at least to keep up a basic emergency capacity. But we also need to rest and relax, probably most of the time. We like to learn new skills and knowledge and at the same time wish to refine our old professions and well-known abilities (Winnicott, 197 1). We cherish our familiar places (especially outdoor places) and at the same time yearn for new worlds to conquer (Nordstrom, 1990; Berg, 1993). No wonder that communities many times are planned in a seemingly contradictory way. From the neighbourhood perspective, human contradictory needs can be fulfilled only if we design several possible solutions in our communities, reflecting different facets of the same human need. 3.3. Essential factors

that mod&

communities

Vital conditions for living systems can often be measured and characterised, whereas human needs are often subject to differing values, interpretations and in general, qualitative reasoning. Yet, if we wish to try and understand sustainability in nature and in human cultures, we have to work on both sides of the scheme (Fig. 1). Vital conditions for living systems and human needs are expected to give the overall frame for sustainability in any community. There are, however. a set of transformative forces and nuancing factors that will affect the final interpretation of e.g., a given neighbourhood’s sustainability in time and space. 3.3. I. Major tran:formative forces The rapid growth in the field of biotechnology and applied information sciences are based on advancements in molecular biology, microbiology and physics. When these technologies confront societal systems, they will have a profound impact on future food industry, medicine, agriculture, worklife and transportation (Schlegel and Bamea, 1977; Toffler, 1980; Zorkoczy, 1985; Uddenberg, 1989; Berg, 1990; Sylwan, 1992). The change in values that we can observe in Sweden (Andersson et al., 1993) shows that young people attach importance to environmental and health issues strongly if compared to the situation 20 years ago. They also demonstrate new

126

P.G. Berg, G. Nycander/Landscape

priorities with regard to work, travel and living in the future, which may set new conditions for future neighbourhood planning. Changing values and the environmental crisis are at present penetrating the whole of society, a development which provokes changes in company policies, communal services and political priorities (MBnsson, 1992). 3.3.2. Natural science teaches energy and material efficiency Increasing knowledge in natural sciences represents a strong force modifying the expression of community planning. A significant but comparatively small part of biological research efforts is made in the fields of systems biology (ecology, ethology and evolutionary theory) (Worster, 1977). The applied sciences ecotechnology (Berg, 1990) and resource theory (M%nsson, 1993) are nevertheless expanding rapidly. These sciences can in the future be expected to have a great impact on environmental diagnostic systems (Jeffrey and Madden, 1994) and environmental therapeutic techniques (Mitsch and Jorgensen, 1989). As a result, dramatic changes in the management of urban environments may occur in the Nordic countries before the year 2000. New solutions may also characterise energy and water technology, land restoration programmes and many biologically inspired aspects of city planning (Berg, 1993). New technology and organisational patterns, derived from advances in natural sciences, can also be expected to materialise at the neighbourhood level. 3.3.3. Social science-learning from man’s own world A third source for modification of communities can be termed man’s own experience. The Historical record reveals successful social organisation as well as failures in management of communities and infrastructure planning. Individual and collective experience from housing programmes and neighbourhood planning in inter alia Sweden after the Second World War, offer warnings and hints to planners of today (Rudberg, 1991). Especially, the period in Sweden just after the war contribute a lot to the understanding of neighbourhood sustainability. Later periods of Scandinavian planning encountered various types of problems, mostly related to the explo-

and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 117-135

sive building period of the late sixties. This period even gave rise to a new definition of neighbourhoods, as administrative units rather than social arenas (Alterman and Cars, 1991; Franz&n and Sandstedt, 1993). Individual and social experience of life in neighbourhoods is best analysed by interviewing the people living there or by organising ways that dwellers can participate in the planning for sustainability. A sub-stream of small-scale experimental projects have, furthermore, all since 1970 worked to find optimal conditions for the sustainable management of physical and human resources in the neighbourhood scale -in so called eco-uillage (Gilman and Gilman, 1991) and eco-hamlet (Berg and Livsey, 1995) projects.

3.3.4. The effect of place and situation If the aforesaid modifying factors have a general effect on the design and organisation of neighbourhoods and other community units, the last modifying factors are dependent on a unique set of circumstances. The site, the situation and the scale of a given community will thus affect the analysis of its present and potential sustainability. Any site will exhibit unique physical qualities with regard to topography, hydrology, climate, solar exposure and wind-shielding among other factors (McHarg, 1969; Whiston Spim, 1984; Bokalders, 1992; Berg, 1993). The situation deals with each community’s place in relation to other communities, to infrastructure, to demographic composition and distribution of human habitats, to habits of inhabitants and to community ambitions, to nearness of service and schools, culture and nature (Alexander et al., 1977; Todd and Todd, 1984; Benello et al., 1989; Jellicoe and Jellicoe, 1991; Register, 1992; Berg, 1993). In all those respects each neighbourhood’s surroundings may be different. All factors considered together constitute a unique pattern of prerequisites that has to be taken into account when examining questions of the neighbourhood’s sustainability. One important consequence of this would be that participation of local inhabitants, organisations, enterprises, schools and authorities are indispensable resources in the process of adapting a given neighbourhood to its respective site- and situation-specific properties.

P.G. Berg, G. Nycander/Landscape

3.3.5. Community diversity The main conclusion of our analysis is that neighbourhoods are potentially very diverse with regard to their ability to sustain resources of various kinds. On the other hand, the general conditions for living systems and human needs will primarily limit the number of conceivable sustainability strategies for different urban or rural neighbourhoods. 3.4. A strategy for resource bourhoods

management

in neigh-

We have thus far tried to illuminate the topic’s complexity and to give a basic definition of the concept sustainability from the neighbourhood perspective. Now we attempt to define a set of resources that will be needed in any community to make possible its sustainable function. These resources are derived from the vital conditions for living systems and from the basic human needs (Fig. 2). We start by defining six possible resources in a neighbourhood. Most of these resources are presumed to have originally been produced outside the neighbourhood. We continue by attempting to outline how these resources can be determined in a given neighbourhood. This resource inventory results in a list of key deficiencies (or surpluses) and finally produces suggestions on how the resources can be complemented. Some Swedish projects are presented to illustrate the process of improving sustainability in neighbourhoods. 3.4.1. An inventory of neighbourhood resources All neighbourhoods have resources-valuable material and immaterial assets that may be enriched or depleted. Threats to the natural and social environment have put neighbourhoods under the spotlight (Etzioni, 1993). Various international and national initiatives have already been taken to activate citizens in neighbourhoods of the world to start at home with local activities like saving water, material, transportation and to reduce waste generation and energy consumption. Global Action Plan (Gershon and Gilman, 199 1) is an international (non-governmental organisation) effort to activate neighbourhood residents to con-

and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 117-135

127

serve natural resources at the neighbourhood level. The countries so far involved are: Canada, USA, Germany, Ireland, Great Britain, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. The number of active households are more than 8000. Agenda 21 from the Rio summit can be seen as a globally-directed appeal to all cities and municipalities of the world to start the work of local development towards a greater physical sustainability. It is also an appeal to involve local people in the process of change. Considering that adaption to place and situation will require local knowledge on physical, geographical and social factors, the appeal of a local participation in Agenda-21 -work is very appropriate (UNCED, 1992). But natural resource conservation is not enough. We must also try to understand individual, social, historical, organisational and economic resources and their respective management better than that obtaining today. In Fig. 2, these resources and their derivation from vital processes of living systems and human needs are summarised.

3.4.2. Natural resources Natural resources like water, soil, crops, metals, wood and energy are produced inside or (in cities mostly) outside the neighbourhood itself. These resources are comparatively easy to measure, and individuals can accordingly be stimulated towards lower consumption; a substitution of rare and poisonous substances can occur and communities of the world can start immediately the process of changing fossil and nuclear fuels to renewables (Pollock Shea, 1988). The neighbourhood may exhibit a diversity of smallscale solutions that save valuable natural resources. Large-scale technical solutions can, however, also be the best answer to neighbourhoods-for instance in the dense townscape of cities. What the best sustainable technical solution would be can only be determined when we examine each neighbourhood’s siteand situation-specific characteristics. This will in turn be dependent on the management of other resources available in the neighbourhood. 3.4.3. Economic resources All neighbourhoods dispose of a set of economic resources. They include buildings, streets, lanes,

128

P.G. Berg, G. Npmder/Land.~cape

paths, squares, cars, buses, bikes, machines, telecommunications networks and equipment, tools and other real capital-i.e., man-made refined artefacts. Seen as a resource, a house can have many different uses in place and time. Systems of streets, lanes, paths and telecommunications can support an overall neighbourhood mobility system, with many applications. Furthermore, the assets of various vehicles and machines can be used, privately or commonly, to the benefit of the neighbourhood in a variety of manners. Together with organisational resources, the economic resources are basic to the sustainable control and management of the small community. 3.4.4. Individual resources At the individual level, resources are represented by personal knowledge, skills, pedagogic abilities, child rearing capacities as well as an ability and willingness to contribute to the social network in a neighbourhood (Etzioni, 1993; Putnam, 1995). Assuming that information exists in a gradient of qualities from raw data to refined wisdom, any individual person’s theoretical and practical experience thus potentially constitute an extremely valuable resource within the small geographic area of a neighbourhood. Some (mostly urban) neighbourhoods need not realise individual assets in full in the neighbourhood scale to qualify as sustainable. In a small community of students within a city for example, there are reasons for individuals to concentrate on the personal learning process, without having to worry too much about the neighbourhood’s common interests or development. Other neighbourhoods can rarely afford neglecting individual capacities for the common good. A good example is a child-rich neighbourhood, which benefits from the presence and guidance of several known grown-ups with various individual capacities. The individual, social and historical resources are all important to conserve any community’s capacity for cultural reproduction. 3.4.5. Social resources Social resources are represented by the relations that exist in a neighbourhood between children, between youngsters, between youngsters and elderly people, between children and grown-ups and among grown-ups. The social resources are difficult to substantiate and can be expected to change a lot. They

and Urban Planning

39 (1997) 117-135

constitute weak links between humans when considered one by one but many weak neighbourhood links can together form a strong social web (Etzioni, 1993; Putnam, 1995). Communication of individual knowledge and skills represent basic social resources in a neighbourhood. The evolution of social resources is furthermore influenced by the organisation of the neighbourhood, especially by the occurrence of and balance between private and common spheres. 3.4.6. Historical resources Historical resources draw on the contribution of knowledge and insights of earlier generations of humans to neighbourhood sustainability. Knowledge of great importance is the general historical record of, for instance, traditional village organisation (Sporrong, 1993) and the organisation of territoriality in ‘primitive man’ (Malmberg, 1980). The recorded historical experience will also give some clues from various earlier eras of human culture: What can we pick up from the hunting and gathering era in history that strengthens our present day neighbourhoods? What can be learned from the agricultural period, with regard to a sustainable relation with nature? And what insights can we gather from the first industrial societies, with special emphasis on depletion of physical and social resources? 3.4.7. Organisational resources The way we organise and design human communities has a profound impact on the odds for building or rebuilding sustainable neighbourhoods. Organisational resources are, for instance, the pattern of roads and paths, the patterns of house clusters, green areas, playgrounds, meeting-places and common assets in a community. Organisational resources are also represented by the access of services like schools, shops, medical care, banks, post-offices and public transportation. Finally organisational resources are found in community routines for decision-making, maintenance of houses and other community assets as well as informal agreements on cooperation in various ways. An inventory of organisational resources starts by analysing the regional structure of cities, towns, small-towns and villages. There are indications that a ‘log-log distribution’ pattern of different-sized

P.G. Berg, G. Nycander/Landscape

townscapes (numbers of towns to numbers of inhabitants) need to be maintained (Alexander et al., 1977) to contribute optimally to sustainability in a region. These towns should also be evenly distributed in the landscape (Boverket, 1994). The inventory continues by investigating the patterns of houses, infrastructure, green structure and other planned design in a community. What organisational resources are needed in various scales of communities? Our hypothesis is that various organisational resources should follow a principle of fractal repetition, as we move from whole towns to individual neighbourhoods (Engwicht, 1992; Alexander et al., 1977). The most important argument for this is that if the citizens can survey a representation of the various resources of society in the local neighbourhood, they will better understand the function of the bigger community. In practice, this means that stores, libraries, post offices, theatres and cathedrals in the city-scale should have their correspondent comer-stores, bookshelves, mailboxes, common house performance scenes and meditation sites, also at the neighbourhood level. Of greatest importance for the potential use of organisational resources is also the degree of self-reliance that is allowed or accepted in any neighbourhood. This will depend on a balance of controlling powers between central planning authorities, market control and social self-organisation (Ostrom, 1990; Etzioni, 1993; Putnam, 1995). In other words, there is a profound need in any neighbourhood that wants to develop its full resources to have some degree of self-determining power. Another key organisational resource in the local community is the balance between private and commonly governed physical assets (Malmberg, 1980; Gehl, 1980). Common houses and greens, paths, playing grounds, squares, vehicles and equipment of common interest in any neighbourhood represent a pool of economic resources. Some of these physical resources can be used for the common good in various ways. For reasons discussed earlier of man’s contradictory needs, the prerequisite for well-functioning common property is the existence of rules and agreements (Ostrom, 1990) that differ from those regulating private ownership.

and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 117-135

129

One last organisational resource is represented by the outline and management of boundaries in a neighbourhood. Boundaries of private spheres like the house, the apartment or the garden of your own, are often physical barriers (walls, fences and doors), whereas the boundaries of house clusters and neighbourhood territories are much more diffusely marked (niches, trees, bushes, pavements and the macrostructure of the pattern of houses-Malmberg, 1980). The other aspect of boundaries are represented by the meeting places created between different neighbourhood entities. These meeting places are found in entrances, verandas, the common green, meeting rooms, festivity places and commonly-governed walking paths and cross-roads (Gehl, 1980). 3.5. Resource

inuentory in practice

The theoretical models proposed thus far can be interpreted in a number of ways. In one sense this is intentional, since there are often several solutions to one sustainability problem. What we have tried to establish is that there are no ways of circumventing the basic vital processes in living systems in general or basic human needs in particular. We also believe that our choice of resource categories is supported by basic scientific knowledge as well as by human experience. But is it possible to carry out a resource inventory also in practice? Keeping in mind that our following examples are not at all complete, we propose the following procedure for examining the sustainability of communities, e.g., of neighbourhoods. In the first step, an evaluation is made to establish if any given neighbourhood is roughly sustainable according to the five basic conditions and human needs listed in Fig. 1. In the second step, a resource inventory is carried out in various neighbourhoods in different townscapes and villages. In such an inventory-which probably partly needs to involve local citizens and organisations-we will eventually note both general and site-situation-specific resource deficiencies. One important result of an inventory effort is therefore a list of recommendations of what is needed to complement any unique neighbourhood to improve on sustainability. The deficiency may often touch upon natural resource management, but it may also un-

130

P.G. Berg, G. Nycander/Lmdscape

cover needs for reinforcing, for instance, the organisational or social resources of a neighbourhood. An inventory of resources can be carried out which analyses plans for new building projects as well as examining existing neighbourhoods. 3.5.1. How can we evaluate the framework of sustainability? We can get a general idea of the sustainability ‘status’ by asking the following questions to planners, care-takers and dwellers or other persons wellinformed of a certain neighbourhood. Is the neighbourhood in general well supplied-in large or small ecocycles (M&isson, 1992)-with renewable material, energy and water sources? Is this nourishment accomplished without the accumulation of poisonous material in the human food chain (most other conceivable natural food-chains as well)? Are people mostly healthy and experience a feeling of wellbeing? Does the management of the neighbourhood include local control and civil networks? In other words: is the local management capacity utilised as well as the outside market and communal rulings? Do cultural reproductive processes (upbringing, education, informal training) occur in-or at least encompass the inhabitants of-the neighbourhood? Is the neighbourhood in any part so organised and equipped as to let its inhabitants-within the neighbourhood as a model-picture the basic function of society as a whole? Is the neighbourhood aware of or able to define its boundaries? Does it nurture both its private and its common spheres? Are its members willing to defend their commonly defined territory in any way? Are there any social initiatives taken in the neighbourhood that lead to communication with other neighbourhoods? Is there any adaptive potential in the neighbourhood? Can the neighbours move easily within the neighbourhood, when families grow or change in any other way? Are there routines for and places to meet where adaption to changes can be discussed in the neighbourhood? 3.5.2. Discovering resource deficiencies and surpluses Through interviews of inhabitants, caretakers and planners, among others, we can get an overall idea of

and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 117-135

sustainability deficiencies of any neighbourhood as outlined above. But to be able to take action against deficiencies they must be more specifically defined in measurable terms. We propose to investigate the status of the aforementioned resources. The following questions can be formulated in a questionnaire or at direct interviews. Are the physical resources actively taken care of, irrespective of whether they are produced locally or at a distance? Is there any plan among individuals or groups in the neighbourhood for reducing the use of energy, water, food or other material consumption? Is there any local production, reusing or repairing of physical resources going on in the neighbourhood? Are the houses, streets, yards, lawns, green structures, playing grounds, vehicles, telecommunication networks, private or common property, used in a resourceful way in the neighbourhood? Are any of the individual skills or knowledges used within the neighbourhood for the benefit of the same? Are there any signs of social resources being used in the neighbourhood: children’s play; informal caring or looking after elderly neighbours; other social efforts between children or between adults in the neighbourhood? Are historical resources like records of earlier inhabitants, houses, grounds or maps present in the neighbourhood? Are there physical signs of earlier settlements in or near the neighbourhood? Are the inhabitants of the neighbourhoods aware of their own genealogical history or even preserve records of it? Are there any particular neighbourhood routines for cleaning, administration, planning, purchase and protection of the neighbourhood? Are there any rules or agreements on common property management? 3.5.3. Sustainability in the city, suburb and countryside When we experiment with new settlements and their sustainability, one strategy is to change existing neighbourhoods step by step and then to evaluate the effects. On one of the islands of Stockholm City a new housing area is planned (Kristineberg) where researchers and inhabitants jointly strive to create a more sustainable quarter. Resources of great interest in this project are only in part physical. Also, organi-

P.G. Berg, G. Nycander/Lundscape

sational resources like district associations, smaller enterprises and service estates are analysed. A second example is taken from the outskirts of Sweden’s second largest city, Gothenburg. Here initiatives are taken to reorganise one of the peripheral suburbs, Bergsjon, towards a greater sustainability. In Bergsjon-which is inhabitated by many low-income families and refugee immigrants-the conditions for local natural resource management is greater than in the former example, but instead it needs to strengthen its individual and social resources. Another strategy then to solve resource problems in already built areas is to develop smaller, completely new housing projects, where inhabitants and experts jointly explore the possibilities beforehand for a sound resource management. These small-scale experiments are best carried out in the edge zone between the city and the rural landscape. Here the natural and cultural resources literally meet and can be studied in theory and practice. In the middle of Sweden three experiments are presently being planned or built with advanced ambitions to economise with various resources. The three projects have similar technical, social and educational goals and are involved in several ways in University research programmes including topics like healthy buildings, renewable energy, hydrology, soil science, local cycling of food and nutrients, cooperation on travel, telecommunications, food production, as well as life-styles and social behaviour. The differences of the three projects are illuminating with regard to sustainability. The first, Bjorkhagen, is situated on the boundary between the dense city and one of the green wedges of Stockholm-only 10 min ride with the underground to the Grand Central Station. In this project, with 44 households, special emphasis is placed on the development of the use of social, economic and organisational resources as a means to economise with natural resources. The use of local natural resources is of less importance since the supply of food, water, energy and materials is dependent on the large-scale flows in the city as a whole. Sustainability in natural resource management is determined on the higher communal level. One particular resource that is reflected in the design of the Bjijrkhagen neighbourhood is constituted by the mere proximity of the great labour market of Stockholm and the dense network of communal

and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 117-135

131

transportation that is offered to the inhabitants of the capital of Sweden. The second project, G%tan, is situated 40 km north of Stockholm in a suburb. In this project 55 households will also develop several resources. One speciality with regard to physical resources is the close integration of the planned village and an existing farm that is situated nearby. In a mutually beneficiary cooperation, the farm will deliver food to the inhabitants; thus the village as a steady consumer represents to some extent economic stability to the little farm. Organic nutrients from the village will in turn be delivered and used as a fertiliser on the farm. Historical resources are treated in a conscious manner in this project. The village is for instance placed in direct contact with an old settlement, an archaeological site with rich historical roots. Organisational resources of special interest are the multitude of special houses that are planned with particular functions: shops, garbage house, greenhouses, workshops and a common house. A third project, Wsterlngen, is situated 15 km east of the city of Uppsala (or 80 km northeast of Stockholm) in the countryside. In this project (32 households) attempts are made to manage all conceivable resources that will be important for sustainability in a neighbourhood. Economising with natural resources is achieved by the development of a local water cycle, by local handling of organic waste, by the use of renewable energy and by reduction of transportation. Economic resources are studied, for instance the common use of vehicles, telecommunication equipment, certain village houses, tools, cultivations, gardens, playing grounds and other common property outdoor spaces. Individual and social resources are greatly affected by the organisation of houses, yards, housing pattern, roads, paths, and meeting places. Historical resources, for instance documents, maps and stories from the local district are used, as well as traces of earlier generations in the surrounding landscape in the planning process. Organisational resources are expected to develop from the local activities of the neighbourhood with children’s activities, part-time workplaces, telecommunications, computer program cooperation as well as individual and common transports. Organisational resources are thoroughly explored also with regard to

132

P.G. Berg, G. Nycander/Landscupe

the service environment of the greater neighbourhood, especially concerning schools, shops, and medicare. The three mentioned projects are all aiming for sustainability, but they differ in village design, space dispositions, various technical solutions, and with regard to transportation, work market and service. In the future every unique part of the townscape can be expected to express its place- and situation-determined set of sustainability strategies. This is hopefully also the ruling objective, whether we are referring to the ant-heap efficiency of the city centre, to the park-dense inner suburbs, to the outer suburbs with villa ‘mats’ on the edge of the city or to small towns, villages and hamlets in the countryside. 3.5.4. Is sustainability enough? The concept of sustainability is interpreted in many ways, especially in political rhetorics. We have chosen to treat the concept sustainability by starting out with a discussion on living systems’ properties and of how human basic needs could be met. In order not to alienate or distance us from the concept as it is understood in the Brundtland report (WCED, 1987) and in the Rio process, we finally propose a ‘sustainability test’, with three criteria which can be derived from the Brundtland definition of sustainable development (Helmfrid, 1992). Given the current political climate and consequent practical difficulties in obtaining a global equality, these criteria can be used to test the direction of change rather than a given state. * Is equal distribution within and between generations promoted? - Are problems solved or just transported in time and space? - Is an individual technical solution a part of a strategy which leads towards a sustainable society? Finally, questions dealing with community ethics must always complete the quest for accomplishing a qualitatively acceptable society. A set of ethical criteria are always needed to guide us towards the good society (Lynch, 1981; Etzioni, 1993). Such values are valid in their own right, that is, they should be seen as ends in themselves. Thus they will not have to be motivated as means to obtain a sustainable society.

and Urban Planning

39 (19971 117-135

4. Conclusions Sustainability is a mobile target. It changes with societal values, technical innovation, growth of knowledge and with a deepening environmental crisis. In this paper we have tried to deal with the complexity of the concept by analysing basic and vital conditions for living systems and basic human needs. In our quest to improve on sustainability in neighbourhoods our investigation has led us to the following conclusions. When we analyse the sustainability status of a given neighbourhood we should start by relating its form and function to vital conditions for living systems and to basic human needs. The second step is to identify resources in neighbourhoods-their presence and absence-to determine which resources need to be complemented or strengthened. In order to understand sustainability at the neighbourhood level, a continuous evaluation of resources should take place by informal communication in neighbourhoods, interviews or through the use of questionnaires. Solutions for improving sustainability in neighbourhoods also need to take into consideration the present status of local and distant societies (surrounding world analysis) as well as larger changing forces in communities (future analysis). Place and situation are thoroughly analysed before the most appropriate sustainability solutions can be achieved. Individuals’ own decisions and preferences are fundamental for finding the sustainability criteria of any given neighbourhood. Individuals and the many people in a neighbourhood should also have a chance to affect the planning process on a neighbourhood scale. There is a special reason why the small neighbourhood should have the opportunity to manage at least a small part of its own resources. If it is true that people understand the predicament of the planet better by sorting garbage or by using less energy and pure water, similar pedagogical arguments should also be valid for other resources. By managing individual, social, historical, organisational and economic resources promptly, the neighbourhood inhabitants will understand the environmental needs of the bigger cities and of the still larger regions of the

P.G. Berg, G. Nwander/Landscape

world better. Then the sustainability of neighbourhoods becomes a pedagogical concern to all the world’s inhabitants.

Acknowledgements We thank Dr. Lars Orrskog (the Department of Regional Planning at the Royal lnstitute of Technology in Stockholm) for valuable suggestions on the conceptual model. We also thank John Forward for his linguistic revision. This work was supported by grants from the Swedish Council for the Planning and Coordination of Research in Stockholm.

References Alexander. C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., 1977. A Pattern Language-Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. Alterman, R., Cars, G., 1991. Neighbourhood Regeneration-an International Evaluation. Mansell, London. Andersson, A.E., Fiirth, T., Holmberg, I., 1993. 70-talister-om Varderingar F&T, Nu och i Framtiden (On Youth’s Changing Values-only in Swedish). Natur och Kultur, Stockholm. Antonovsky, A., 1987. Unraveling the Mystery of Health. JosseyBass, Benello, C.G., Swarm, R., Tumbull, S., 1989. Building Sustainable Communities-Tools and Concepts for Self-Reliant Economic Change. Bootstrap Press, New York. Berg, P.G., 1990. Omsorg om Vir Planet-Ekologisk Teknik (Care for our Planet-Ecological Technology-in Swedish). Natur och Kultur and Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm. Berg, P.G. (Ed.), 1993. Biologi och Bos’iittning-Naturanpassning i Samhallsbyggandet (Biology and Settlement-in Swedish). Natur och Kultur and Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm. Berg, P.G.. Livsey, S., 1995. Interface Settlements for Perimeter People-on Ecohamlets as an Experimental Model for Nordic Rural and Urban Ecoplanning. Conference paper on Ecocity 2 conference in Adelaide, Australia, April 16-19, 1992, accepted for publication in the conference proceedings. Berglund, U., Jergeby, U., 1989. Uteliv-med barn och pension’rirer pi g&d och gata i park och natur (Outdoor life-with children and old people in yards and streets, in parks and nature). Swedish Council of Building Research, Stockholm. Bokalders, V., 1992. Ecological building and planning, a definition. In: The National Association of Swedish Architects. Eco Logical Architecture, European Congress 92 Conference report supplement. The National Association of Swedish Architects, Stockholm. Boverket, 1994. Sverige 2009-En skiss till en nationell vision. Samridsmaterial-Februari 1994 (Sweden 2009-a sketch on

and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 117-135

133

a national vision-in Swedish). National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, Karlskrona. Braudel, P., 1979. Les Structures Quotidien: Le Possible et L’Impossible. Libraire Armand Colin, Paris, British Museum, 1981. Human Biology-an Exhibition of Ourselves, British Museum-Natural History. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Bromley, D. (Ed.), 1992. Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy. ICS Press, San Francisco. Daly, H., 1990. Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 2, l-6. Daly, H., Cobb, J.B. Jr., 1990. For the Common Good-Redirecting the Economy towards Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Green Print, London. Dixon, B., 1976. Invisible Allies-Microbes and Man’s Future. Temple Smith, London. Eddy, J.A., Malone, T.F., McCarthy, J.J., Rosswall, T. (Eds.), 1991. Global Change System for Analyses, Research and Training-Report of a Meeting at Bellagio, December 3-7, 1990. Report No. 15, The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme: A Study of Global Change (IGBP) of the Intemational Council of Scientific Unions, Stockholm. Ellul, J., 1964. The Technological Society. Vintage, New York. Engwicht, D., 1992. Towards an Eco-city-Calming the Traffic. Envirobook, Sydney. Etzioni, A., 1993. The Spirit of Community-Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda. Crown, New York. Ewerman, A., 1992. Intelligenta Hus-State of the Art 1992. (Intelligent Houses-in Swedish). Report T:30, The Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm. Fischer, D.W., 1992. Sweden and Energy-Implications of Substituting the Market Policy System for the Politics of Fuel. Institute for Futures Studies, in manuscript. Fran&n, M., Sandstedt, E., 1993. Valfardsstat och byggande. Om efterkrigstidens nya stadsmdnster i Sverige (On Urban Patterns in Sweden after the Second World War-in Swedish). Arkiv fdrlag, Stockholm. Gehl, J., 1980. Livet mellem husene-udeaktiviteter och udemiljoer (Life between the houses-outdoor activities and outdoor environments-in Danish). Arkitektens forlag, Copenhagen. Gershon, D., Gilman, R., 1991. Household Ecoteam WorkbookA Six Month Program to bring your Household into Environmental Balance. Global Action Plan For The Earth. Gilman, D., Gilman, R., 1991. Eco-Villages and Sustainable Communities. A Report For Gaia Trust By Context Institute, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Goldemberg, J., Johansson, T.B., Reddy, A., Williams, R.H., 1988. Energy for a Sustainable World. Wiley, New York. Grahn, P., 1991. Om Parkers Betydelser (On the Significance of Parks-partly in English). Dissertation, Department of Landscape Planning, Swedish University of Agriculture. Stad och Land 93, Alnarp, Sweden. Heller, A., 1985. The Power of Shame-a Rational Perspective. London. Helmfrid, H., 1992. Vad menas med Uthillig Utveckling? Begreppsanalys och ansats till Operationalisering. (What is meant

134

P.G. Berg, G. Nycander/Landscape

with Sustainable Development-in Swedish with English summary). Report 49, Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Holling, C.S., 1986. The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Local Surprise and Global Change. In: Clark, W., Munn, R.R. (Eds.), Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. IIASA, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Hyams, E., 1976. Soil and Civilization. John Murray, London. Jeffrey, D.W., Madden, B. (Eds.) 1994. Bioindicators and Environmental Management. Academic Press, London. Jellicoe, G., Jellicoe, S., 1991. The Landscape of Man-Shaping the Environment from Prehistory to the present day, revised and enlarged edn. Thames and Hudson, London. Johnson, R., 1991. Tomorrow’s Energy-Energy Research in Sweden 1990-1993. The Swedish Board of Technical Development, Stockholm. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Lonnroth, M., Johansson, T.B., Steen, P., 1980. Solar Versus Nuclear-Choosing Energy Futures. Secretariat for Futures Studies, Stockholm and Pergamon, Oxford. Lorenta, K., 1967. On Aggression. Methuen. Lovelock, J., 1989. The Ages of Gaia. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Lynch, K., 1981. A Theory of Good City Form. London. Malmberg, T., 1980. Human Territoriality-Survey of Behavioural Territories in Man with Preliminary Analysis and Discussion of Meaning. Mouton, Paris. Mansson, T. (Ed.), 1992. Ecocycles-The Basis of Sustainable Urban Development. Swedish Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Environmental Advisory Council, SOU 1992:43. Allmlna Forlaget, Stockholm. Mansson, B., 1993. Miljii for B’tikraftighet-Perspektiv pl Naturresurser, deras Begransningar och deras Roll i Samhallet (Environment for Sustainability, only in Swedish). Liber-Hermoda, Malmii. Max-Neef, M., 1989. Development and human needs. Development Dialogue 1, 17-46. McCay, B.J., Acheson, J.M. (Eds.), 1987. The Question of the Commons: the Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson. McHarg, I., 1969. Design with Nature. Natural History Press, Philadelphia. Mitsch, W.J., Jorgensen, S.E. (Eds.), 1989. Ecological Engineering-an Introduction to Ecotechnology. Wiley-Interscience, New York. Nordstrom, M., 1990. Barns boendefdrestiallningar i ett utvecklingspsykologiskt perspektiv (Children’s conceptions of how they would like to live. A developmental psycology study-in Swedish with English summary). Report SB:30, The Swedish Institute for Building Research. Nordstrom, M., 1994. V&t behov av grijnska (Our need for verdure-in Swedish with English summary). Report R:l4, Swedish Council for Building Research. Odum, E., 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA.

and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 117-135 Odum, E., 1989. Ecology-and our Endangered Life-support Systems. Sinauer, MA. Orrskog, L., 1993. Planering fdr Uthlllighet (Planning for Sustainability-in Swedish). Dissertation, Royal Institute of Technology. Report R:S7, The Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons-the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Pearce, D., Turner, R.K., 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Harvester, Wheatsheaf. Pollock Shea, C., 1988. Renewable Energy: Today’s Contribution, Tomorrow’s Promise. World Watch Paper 81 (January). Prohansky, H., Fabian, A., 1987. The Development of Place Identity in the Child. In: Weinstein, C., David, T. (Eds.), The Built Environment and Child Development. Plenum, New York. Putnam, R.D., 1995. Bowling Alone-America’s Declining Social Capital. J. Democracy (Jan.). Register, R., 1992. Building Ecological Cities-an Urban Ecologist’s Perspective. In: The National Association of Swedish Architects, Eco Logical Architecture-European Congress 92 -Conference report supplement. The National Association of Swedish Architects, Stockholm. Rudberg, E., 1991. From Model Town Plans to Municipal Planning Guidelines. In: Fredlund, A. (Ed.), Swedish Planning-In Time of Transition. PLAN, Gavle, Sweden. Schlegel, H.G., Barnea, J. (Eds.), 1977. Microbial Energy Conversion. Pergamon, Oxford. Sporrong, U. (Ed.), 1993. The Future of Rural Landscape. Bebyggelsehistorisk Tidskrift No. 26. Svedin, U., 1992. The challenge of the societal dimension to environmental issues. In: Svedin, U. Hagerhall-Aniansson, B. (Eds.), Society and the Environment-A Swedish Research Perspective. Kluwer. Sylwan, P. (Ed.), 1992. Global Communication and Human Change. Framtider International 1992:3. Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm. Tengstrom, E., 1985. Human Ecology-a new Discipline? Humanekologiska skrifter 4. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg. Todd, N.J., Todd, J., 1984. Bioshelters, Ocean Arks, City Farming: Ecology as the Basis of Design. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. Toffler, A., 1970. The Future Shock. New York. Toffler, A., 1980. The Third Wave. Bantam Books, New York. Trivers, R., 1985. Social Evolution. Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, CA. Uddenberg, N., 1989. Prometeus och Dryaden-Manniskan, naturen, tekniken, etiken (Prometeus and the Dryad-Man, nature, technology and ethics,-in Swedish). Natur och Kultur and Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm. UNCED, 1992. Agenda 21. Action Plan Adopted at the UN Conference on the Environment in Rio de Janeiro, June 3-14. Villee, CA., Salomon, E.P., Davis, P.W., 1985. Biology, Saunders, Philadelphia, PA.

P.G. Berg, G. Nyander/Lmdscape WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Weil, S., 1955. Att slH rot (To become rooted-in Swedish). Stockholm. Whiston Spim, A., 1984. The Granite Garden-Urban Nature and Human Design. Basic Books, Harper Collins Pub]. Winnicott, D.W., 1971. Playing and Reality. Tavistock Publications. Worster, D., 1977. Nature’s Economy-A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Young, G.E. (Ed.), 1983. Origins of Human Ecology. Stroudsburg, PA. Zorkoczy, P., 1985. Information Technology-An Introduction. Pitman, London.

and Urban Planning 39 (19971 117-135

135

Biography

Per G. Berg has a PhD in Microbial Ecology and is Director of Research at the Department of Landscape Planning in Uppsala. He was Principal Investigator at the Institute for Futures Studies in Stockholm in a study on the application of systems biology in technology, societal planning, and in human transport and communication. Doctor Berg is also the head of a small building project in Uppsala which focuses on sustainability in the neighbourhood perspective.Gunnel Nycander has a BSc and a particular interest in Environmental Economics and Economic History. Ms. Nycander is also Assistant Investigator at the Swedish Ministry of Environment in issues concerning Trade and Environment.