Integrating urban planning and Ecological Sustainability: A Multidimensional Framework

MalmUniversity

Department of Urban Studies Sustainable Urban Management Global Urban Challenges, BY603E, 15 credits

NikodmosTakeleGeberetsadik AutumnSemester,2010

Abstract
An ecologically sound sustainable urban development pattern has been highlighted as a major principle in urban development in recent years which was followed by a concern regarding the sufficiency of urban planning in delivering sustainable urban development. Consequently many authors have proposed planning frameworks that integrate urban planning and ecological sustainability. However there is still need for an all-encompassing and comprehensive framework to integrate urban planning and ecological sustainability. Based on a synthesis of desirable characteristics of prior integrated planning frameworks, various planning paradigms and case studies a comprehensive framework is proposed to integrate urban planning and ecological sustainability. A case study on the city of Malm has also provided interesting aspects that empower the framework proposed. Keywords: Urban planning, ecological sustainability, Integrated planning

1. Introduction Unrestrained urban growth constrains sustainable urban development (UN-Habitat 2009) giving rise to unsustainable patterns such as over exploitation of natural resources, ecosystem destruction and environmental pollution. The widely accepted 1987 Brundtland report Our Common Future which calls for sustainable development - development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs imply the need for adopting sustainable development paths in urbanization, where much of the global environmental problems can be traced back to. Intensifying environmental problems and the global need for sustainable urban development has led some practitioners and authors to question the sufficiency of urban planning in delivering sustainable urban development. The UN-Habitat global report on human settlements (2009) views mainstream urban planning as narrow and too procedural to contend with the multi-faceted contemporary urban problems and echo the need for planning approaches that respond to urban sustainability concerns. Similarly many authors (Slocombe 1992 and 1993, Campbell 1996, He et al. 2010) have recognized the apparent shortcomings in urban planning to tackle contemporary environmental concerns and consequently proposed different frameworks to address the shortcomings through integrating urban planning and ecological sustainability.

Planning is a complex task simply because the subject matter involved is multitemporal, multivariate and multidimensional (Lein 2003). Urban planning is no different and integrating it with ecological sustainability, i.e. integrated planning, will add to the dimensions and variables of planning. Previous integrated planning frameworks proposed do not wholly capture the variables and dimensions associated with integrating ecological sustainability and urban planning. Hence there is still need for an all-encompassing and comprehensive framework that can capture all the dimensions and variables associated with integrating urban planning and ecological sustainability.

2. Purpose of the Study The aim of this study is to present a comprehensive framework for integrating urban planning and ecological sustainability that captures all the associated variables and dimensions.

3. Method The study comprises of two parts. The first part is the presentation of the framework which will be achieved through a review and synthesis of desirable characteristics of prior integrating frameworks, urban planning paradigms and case studies. Fainstein (2000) and Bulkely (2005) also suggested empiricism and best practices provide the basis for policy transfer and learning for sustainable urban development, hence, the second part will be a case study on the city of Malm with the aim of exploring additional aspects to the framework to better operationalize the integration of ecological sustainability with urban planning. A case study is an empirical investigation of a real life phenomenon (Yin 2003). Semi-structured interviews (see A1) and review of relevant articles and publications are the methods used to conduct the case study. 3.1. Process

After the preparation of semi-structured questions, the questions were communicated to the city planning office via email with purposes clearly stated and elaborated. Semi-structured questions are preferred in situations where it is desired for the interviewee to take a leading role and provide in-depth information about the phenomenon being researched without being bounded (see Yin 2003), which was desired in this study. The questions were soon replied with the required information and additional documents providing in-depth information on the questions raised. A second and final group of questions were also communicated to the Environment department (see A2) which was replied in the same manner. A separate questionnaire was prepared to the environment department since it was important to have a look on some of the issues from the vantage point of the environment department.

4. Theory 4.1. Urban Planning

Planning is the intervention to alter existing course of events (Campbell et al. 2008). It is the gathering and analysis of information to forward the general welfare through guiding a broad range of human, economic and other development activities (Friedmann 1987). Correspondingly urban planning is regarded as a category of spatial planning that gives geographical expressions to the economic, social, cultural and ecological will of a society guided by a scientific orientation, an administrative technique and a policy (He J. et al. 2010, Campbell 1996, Slocombe 1992). Scholars usually identify two elements of urban planning: Master planning and comprehensive planning. Master plans also referred to as end-state and blue-print plans are spatial or physical plans that depict on a map future state of an urban area when the plan is realized (UN-Habitat 2009). Comprehensive plans based on the requirements of master plans propone that planning system should plan towns as a whole and in detail through regulating land use and the design and construction of buildings (ibid). In its most detailed stage comprehensive planning is referred as regulatory planning. The fixation of urban planning on space mainly dominated by engineering and economic perspectives and rigid administrative boundaries has led to its criticism. Urban planning is criticized to neglect interdisciplinary approaches halting the examination of substantive issues critical to urban development. Particularly ecologists have criticized urban planning for lack of consideration of the links and trade-offs between economic and social variables and ecological sustainability.

4.2.

Ecological sustainability

The environmental concerns on our planet have expanded dramatically in recent decades and are now among the most serious challenges affecting peoples well- being around the globe. Addressing environmental degradation and ensuring ecological sustainability are inseparably linked to reducing poverty and improving peoples lives (WDR 2007).Ecological sustainability is defined as the capacity of ecosystems to maintain their essential services and processes and to preserve biodiversity in the long run. More on a sustainable development approach, Callicott et al. (1997) defines ecological sustainability as meeting human needs without compromising the health of the environment. In the current study the latter definition is adopted in the context of ecologically sustainable urban development. A scalar classification of land-uses made by Forman and Godron (1986) spanning from the most pristine to the most modified landscape based on the intensity of human intervention puts the urban landscape at the most modified with proportionate pressure and degradation on the physical environment which is also manifested in the ecological footprints of many cities. The ecological footprint analysis (Wackernagel et al. 1996) is a comprehensive measurement tool to estimate the pressure of a defined human settlement (e.g. a city) on the physical environment in terms of resource consumption and waste generation. The ecological footprint
4

Table 1: Aspects of ecologically sustainable urbanization greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and serious climate change mitigation and adaptation actions are implemented; urban sprawl is minimized and more compact towns and cities served by public transport are developed; non-renewable resources are sensibly used and conserved; renewable resources are not depleted; the energy used and the waste produced per unit of output or consumption is reduced; the waste produced is recycled or disposed of in ways that do not damage the wider environment; and the ecological footprint of towns and cities is reduced.

Adopted from UN-Habitat report (2009)

of a city indicates the land area necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption and waste discharged by the population in the city. Subsequently different authors (Newman et al. 2008 Rees et al. 1996) have computed ecological footprint analysis for various cities. Vancouver was estimated to require more than 19 times larger than its home territory to support its consumption on 1996 levels. Londons ecological footprint on 2000 consumption levels was calculated to be 42 times the citys bio capacity and 293 times its geographical area. Similarly on a national level the Netherlands ecological footprint was calculated to be 15 times larger than its territory. Conversely developing countries like India had smaller footprint than it could support within its geographical boundaries. In general Humanities ecological footprint was calculated to exceed natures supportive capacity by 30% on 1996 consumption levels and it is plausible that these figures has continued to increase given increasing population and economic growth. Ecological footprints are much higher in urban areas (or societies) where constant input of material and energy from nature is required to feed their citizens and to build and operate their production and infrastructure facilities that continuously cater them with goods and services (Wackernagel et al. 1996). This is also accompanied by a proportionate increase in waste load. The pressure on green spaces and forests that is caused as a result of expansion of cities also challenges natures assimilative capacity leading to further ecological degradation. The ecological consequences of these are profound both for urban residents and beyond (Turner 1994). Consequently many authors in the field (Scolombe 1992, Ziperer 2000, Wacernagel and Rees 1996) and international documents (UN-Habitat 2009) have called for sustainable urban development patterns. The materialization of sustainable urbanization entails sustainable
5

patterns in land use, consumption and waste management. Aspects of sustainable urbanization are presented in table 1. Authors like Scolombe (1991 and 1992), Campbell (1996), Simons and Staalduine (2004) and Niemel (1999) argue that the materialization sustainable urbanization requires the effective integration of ecological sustainability with urban planning. Staalduine and Simons (2004) identify three main advantages of integration: Firstly, both policy areas need each other. This point is also enforced by Niemel (1999) in the authors argument that both research and practice of urban sustainability would benefit from the integration, as ecology would benefit from the social science roots in urban planning and urban planning would benefit from better understanding of urban ecosystems. Secondly, experiences in the implementation of urban spatial policy and environmental policy indicate that benefits can only be achieved through good cooperation. Thirdly, it is argued that separate production of urban and environmental plans would result in a great deal of professional and political effort, time and money. Subsequently integrating frameworks were proposed by many authors to beget sustainable urbanization.

5. Integration Framework A framework is a structure of possible courses of action or a preferred approach towards a notion or a phenomenon. In this study integration framework or integrated planning framework refers to preferred approaches towards integrating urban planning and ecological sustainability. In section 1 it is argued that integrated planning is multitemporal, multivariate and multidimensional. Hence a framework for integrated planning should embrace similar attributes. Based on a review of case studies, urban planning paradigms and previous integrated planning frameworks a framework is proposed that portrays the temporal dimensions of integrating urban planning and ecological sustainability. The temporal dimensions are pre-integration conditions, in-integration dimensions and post-integration dimensions. Such a temporal framework is argued to capture all the variables and dimensions associated with integrating urban planning and ecological sustainability. For instance preintegration conditions capture the pre-condition variables imperative to integrated planning. While in-integration dimensions capture the procedural and substantive variables necessary for integrated planning. Post-integration dimensions are about monitoring and evaluation of the integrated planning and are also about the framework itself in that they create a feedback and self-improvement mechanism for the framework. As it is argued in section 1, previous integration frameworks do not wholly capture the variables and dimensions associated with integrated planning. For instance Wackernagel et al. (1996) and Slocombes (1993) integration frameworks only addresses in-integration dimensions. Similarly Campbells (1996) framework only captures procedural and substantive paths in in-integration neglecting pre-integration and post-integration dimensions. He J. et al. (2010) could be the most comprehensive integration framework so far but it still misses important in-integration dimensions and pre-integration conditions which are found to be
6

relevant in the case studies reviewed. Hence a framework that is argued to be comprehensive and can capture all the variables and dimensions of integrating urban planning and ecological sustainability is proposed in the next section.

5.1.

Integration framework Proposed

Pre-integration Conditions The possibilities of achieving integration are to a considerable extent, a function of certain pre-integration conditions. These conditions mainly represent contextual and institutional factors that determine integration which are also posited as policy level integration of urban planning and ecological sustainability. Legislative and political Support: integration of ecological sustainability with urban development at the decision (or planning) stage requires a legitimate base to channel plans and policies towards integration. Different authors/practitioners (Berg 2004, Staalduine and Simons 2004, Piro 2004) identify four areas of policy level integrations or legislative support towards integrated planning i.e. legislations at the regional (for e.g. EU), national, provincial and municipal levels with their respective opportunities and obstacles for integration. Staalduine and Simons (2004) argue that both horizontal (e.g. spatial planning with environmental planning) and vertical (e.g. regional level planning with municipal planning) integration are facilitated by appropriate rules and procedures to guide them. Case studies in Australia and Canada (Slocombe 1993) show that competing interests of various government and private agencies and lack of policy to guide their relationship to hinder integrated planning and management efforts of forests in the Alps and Alberta. These hindrances were also rendered to be manifestations of lack of political attention given to ecological sustainability. Similarly He J. et al. (2010) identify lack of legislative support and government attention as the major bottlenecks towards integrated planning in china and propose institutional collaboration of urban planning and environmental planning agencies and the promotion of issues of ecological sustainability to gain more public support and political ground. Similar types of problems were avoided to a limited extent in The United States (Miller et al. 2004) and The Netherlands (Berg et al. 2004) due to early efforts to accompany environmental concerns with appropriate legislations. However problems related to vertical integration were apparent in The United States giving rise to the recognition that regional, state and urban planning are interdependent and the essence of finding means to create meaning for regional and state legislations and policies at the municipal level. Authors like Campbell (1996) view legislative and political support as direct correlate of public awareness and concern. Campbell envisions that if the public is concerned and aware about environment issues, they will vote for candidates with the best environmental records and promised legislation. These implies that efforts to enhance awareness among the public to potentially result in legislative and political support towards integrated planning.

Financial support: given the limited availability of resources; planners and policy makers are taken to prioritize short-term and local benefits of the economy rather than the long-term and global benefits of ecologically sustainable urban planning. Studies (Oosterveld 2004 and Gibbs 1996) in Canada and Britain reveal that the political viability of short-term gains of economic aspects secure financial precedence of politicians resulting in limited finance to incorporate ecological sustainability in decision making. Coenen (2004) frames lack of finance as one of the major factors halting the incorporation of ecological planning in urban planning in The Netherlands. Gibbs argues that making integrated planning the blueprint for approving grants and budgets would ensure integrated planning. Staalduine and Simons (2004) go deeper to suggest an integration of environment and urban planning budgets and recommend laws and regulations to be flexible enough to warrant the usage of funds in a wider sense.

In-integration Dimensions In-integration dimensions represent substantive and procedural approaches necessary to realize the integration of urban planning and ecological sustainability. Ecological knowledge of the city1: integrating ecological sustainability and urban planning requires an ecological knowledge of the urban area the planning activity is intended for. Efforts towards integration in Western Europe were mainly halted or limited in scope due to lack of such information and knowledge (Stren et al. 1992). In The Netherland studies (Staalduine et al. 2004, Berg 2004) show that problems related to incorporating environmental concerns into urban planning emanate from lack of ecological knowledge. Similarly in Finland, Niemel (1999) highlights that scarcity of ecological knowledge weakened integrated planning.Lack of ecological knowledge intricate finding explanations for ecological phenomenon and predicting changes as urbanization proceeds limiting possibilities of integration (ibid). Moreover integration of regional and state environmental planning and policies into city planning is dependent on ecological knowledge of the city. Slocombe (1993) argues that planning and management frameworks should be locally developed and locally relevant. An area specific documentation and research of ecology examining its interrelationship with the economy and societal way of life in the area is necessity for the production of city relevant integration framework of city planning and ecological sustainability (Campbell 1996, Slocombe 1992 and 1993 and He J. et al. 2010) and translating regional and national policies to the municipal context (Coenen 2004). Ecological knowledge of the city is also a precondition for ecosystem approaches, which is presented as an in-integration dimension in the present study. Ecosystem approaches2: integration of urban planning and ecological sustainability requires the understanding of the interaction of socioeconomic aspects with the environment within a city and the method to reflect it in planning. An ecosystem approach is a methodology of analyzing an entity (a system), its environment and the interactions between them
8

(Slocombe 1992). The ecosystem approach brings a systematic, holistic approach to analyze complex set of interrelationships providing higher clarity and a wide set of factors in analyzing the prospects of decisions. An urban ecosystem approach yields knowledge and information for policy makers regarding trade-offs and synergy between socioeconomic and ecological values at various spatial, temporal and management scales (UNU/IAS 2003). Such information and knowledge will aid planners in visualizing and guiding planning activities towards optimal and healthy interdependence between socioeconomic values and ecological values and limits. Furthermore ecosystem approaches mandate better integration of environmental information in planning and facilitate locally appropriate, self-reliant sustainable action (Slocombe 1992). The nature of ecosystem approaches warrants methodologies such as participatory approaches and multidisciplinary data collection and analysis. This has led some scholars to redefine the role of the planner in the face of dealing with a wide range of actors and disciplines in the planning and decision making process. In the face of dealing with various actors and disciplines Campbell (1996) identifies the role of the planner as a translator, in which the planner translates professional languages across various disciplines to create an understanding of each others language, reasoning and priority. Related to participatory approaches, the communicative model (Healey 1996) proposes that planning practices should enable purposes to be communicatively discovered. In this model the role of the planner is to provide information, listen to peoples stories and assist in forging consensus among differing views. Consensus decision making is particularly important in the prevalence of actors with disparate viewpoints (e.g. economists and ecologists), since it enables disparate viewpoints to work toward a mutually acceptable and politically supportable position (Mackenzie 1993).

Post-Integration Dimensions Post-integration dimensions mainly represent evaluation and monitoring activities of plans to continuously enable an incremental integration of urban planning and ecological sustainability. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): SEA evaluates the environmental impacts of policies, plans, and programs and their alternatives (Therivel et al. 1992 cited from Shepered et al. 1996).SEA is a post-integration pre-implementation exercise that is implemented to ensure the compliance of plans and policies with sustainability principles i.e. SEA is aimed at comparing various policy alternatives before major project level decisions take place. He J. et al. (2010) argue that SEA should be fully incorporated in the whole process of planning providing ecological sustainability relevant information at each stage of planning which is labeled as full integration of SEA and planning (Partidario 2004). Similarly case studies in Britain, United States, Sweden and Canada (Shepered 1996) and China (HE J. et al. 2010) revealed that SEA enabled early examination of estimated impacts of policies and plans on the urban environment and consideration of sustainability principles through providing a systematic integrated framework. In the current integrated planning framework SEA can be fully integrated into planning or it can assume the state of staple integration carried out only
9

Table 2: A multidimensional integration framework Pre-integration Conditions Legislative support In-integration Dimensions Ecological knowledge of the city Ecosystem approaches Participatory approach Determining the right role of the planner Consensus decision making Post-integration Dimensions Strategic environmental assessment Sustainability indicators

Financial support

once after the plan is defined. Either way its role will be to aid a better and locally relevant integration of urban planning and ecological sustainability. Sustainability indicators: sustainability indicators in general measure the movement towards or away from sustainability. In the urban planning context, sustainability indicators serve as an evaluation tool to inform and improve planning. A case study in three North American cities (Miller 2004) reveals that sustainability indicators were used in these cities to measure changes over time and convey information to facilitate monitoring the effectiveness of plans and policies. In these cities sustainability indicators were aggregated to inform plans and policies. Bell and Morse (1999) also support the aggregation of indicators to obtain a general picture of sustainability. Sustainability indicators, particularly ecological sustainability indicators, can create a feedback structure in which the effectiveness of integration of ecological sustainability and urban planning can be measured and inform improved integration of urban planning and ecological sustainability. Improved integration can be materialized in terms of restructuring the pre-integration conditions or adopting a more locally relevant in-integration dimension or both. The integration framework is summarized in Table 2. 6. Case: The city of Malm 6.1. Background Malm is the third largest city in Sweden, located in the southern tip of Skne with approximately 295, 000 habitants. It is the capital of the region of Skne and at the centre of the resund region. Historically known as an industrial city, Malm has undergone structural
10

changes to transform to a sustainable knowledge based city. The structural changes came about as a result of closure of industries and businesses which was followed by high unemployment and budget deficits faced by the municipality in the 1990s. By the mid 1990s the city put in place a vision to become a centre for knowledge and sustainable urban development in the overall Skne and resund region and has been working (and is working) tirelessly towards realizing that vision. Malm has won international attention and recognition for its commitment towards sustainable urban development particularly for its efforts towards creating a climate friendly urban development structure. It is considered as an example of sustainable urban development and it has been awarded the UN Habitat Scroll of Honour in 2009 (see unhabitat.org). The leading role that the city is playing in sustainable urban development is the main reason why it was chosen as a case study here.

6.2.

Integrating City Planning and Ecological Sustainability in Malm

Reinventing Malm as a sustainable knowledge based city and discovering its role in the resund and Skne region has provided unique opportunities for integrating urban planning and ecological sustainability in Malm. The municipality has a vision of branding the city as a centre of innovation and sustainable urban development in the resund and Skne region and has many plans and ongoing projects to its effect. For the year 2020, Malm has committed itself to become climate neutral and, for 2030, to run on 100 percent renewable energy. Moreover long-term compact and mixed development, promotion of an environmentally adapted traffic system, and strengthening biological diversity are targeted for. In the face of defining the competitive edge of the city as a centre of knowledge and sustainable development in the region, such efforts are hoped to attract and stimulate similar investments in the city and associated employment providing the economic base of the city. In the case of Malm, ecological sustainability is not only something to be integrated with urban planning; it is also a vision in which the citys future is founded upon. Such a phenomenon has provided unique opportunities to intertwine urban planning and ecological sustainability in Malm. The case study has also revealed specific issues that are of relevance to the framework proposed which are presented below. However the case study was not exhaustive in the sense that some aspects that are of relevance to the framework might have been overlooked. An interesting pre-integration phenomenon in Malm is how Legislative and political support for integrated planning is framed. European Union and state environmental legislations are available but as the planning office pointed out, their role in influencing urban planning is minimal and it is the municipals policies and goals that are often referred during urban planning. This is also in par with the findings in The Netherlands (Coenen 2004) and The United States (Piro 2004) in which there was much appeal to local policies and priorities rather than state and/or regional environmental policies. Apparently in Malm integration of
11

ecological sustainability and urban planning is mandated mainly due to the fact that it coincides with the vision of the city. This conveys important information regarding the effectiveness of regional policies and laws in influencing integration of urban planning and ecological sustainability at the local or city level. It also empowers Slocombes (1993) argument that a framework to integrate urban planning and ecological sustainability should be locally relevant. Hence procedural and substantive paths proposed in the current framework to better integrate regional and state environmental policies into urban planning could prove to be necessary. Another interesting pre-integration phenomenon being practiced in Malm is awareness creation. Malm works on various environmental awareness creation programs. As Campbell (1999) highlighted this could help create public support (and hence vote) for candidates with the best environmental records, paving the way towards legislative and political support for integration of urban planning and ecological sustainability. An interesting in-integration aspect that is being practiced in Malm is multidisciplinary planning: The planning team in Malm comprises of architects, engineers, sociologists, economists, statisticians, biologists and others. This has enabled a multidisciplinary data collection and analysis of phenomenon facilitating integrated planning. Post-integrated planning activities are also conducted in Malm mainly by the environment department. However as evidences suggest monitoring and evaluation activities conducted by the environment department mainly relate to operations rather than plans and finding the best environmentally sound ways of implementing plans.

7. Conclusion The integration framework proposed is a contribution to the efforts towards exploring a framework to integrate urban planning and ecological sustainability and it should provide a general and comprehensive approach and ease the integration of urban planning and ecological sustainability. The framework could also stimulate ideological and institutional fusion of various disciplines and sectors and further pave the way towards holism in urban planning. As the relevance of much of the variables and dimensions adopted in the framework came from case studies, a similar case study was initiated on the city of Malm. The case study revealed some new pre-integration and in-integration dimensions that were relevant to the purpose of this study. Environmental awareness creation was an important pre-integration variable that was identified, that attempts to alter the context in which the urban planning takes place to a more auspicious one for integrated planning. An in-integration variable that was identified is multidisciplinary planning which entails the communication and dealing of actors with different views from various departments representing different interests. In such cases in-integration dimensions like consensus decision making provided in the framework could prove to be useful. Analogous to the framework, the case study on the city of Malm also enforces the need for a locally relevant policy and framework to locally materialize the integration of urban planning and ecological sustainability.
12

Notes 1. For more on ecological data collection and analysis see biotope mapping (Tripathi et al. 1993), ecological footprint analysis (Wackernagel et al. 1996), state of the environment reporting (Jonet 1990) 2. For a review of ecosystem approaches including advantages and disadvantages see Slocombe (1992 and 1993)

References
1. Bell S. and Morse S. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable, EarthscanPublications Ltd., 1999. 2. Berg M. D. Towards Urban Environmental Quality in The Netherlands. In Miller D. and Roo G.D, Integrating City Planning and Environmental Improvement: Practicable Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2004. 3. Bulkeley Harriet, Urban sustainability: learning from best practice? Environment and Planning A, volume 38, 2006 4. Campbell Scott, Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1996. 5. Callicott J.B and Mumford K., Ecological Sustainability as a Conservation Concept, Conservation Biology Vol. 11 No. 11, 1997 6. Coenen F.H.J.M. Urban Development and the Role of Strategic Environmental Policy Planning: Experiences with the First Generation of Plans in The Netherlands. In Miller D. and Roo G.D, Integrating City Planning and Environmental Improvement: Practicable Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2004. 7. Fainstein Susan S., New Directions in Planning Theory, 2000. In Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein, Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003 8. Forman RTT and Godron M, Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1986 9. He J, et al, Framework for integration of urban planning, strategic environmental assessment and ecological planning for urban sustainability within the context of China, Environ Impact Asses Rev, 2010. 10. Healey P. The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation. In Campbell S. and Fainstein S., Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell Publishing, 1996. 11. Jonet W. C. Environmental indicators for state of the environment reporting, Information paper (Centre for Resource Management) Lincoln University, 1990. Can be accessed online at http://hdl.handle.net/10182/1107 12. Lein, James K. Integrated Environmental Planning, Blackwell Publishing Company, 2003. 13. Miller D. Design and Use of Urban Sustainability Indicators in Physical Planning: A view From Cascadia. In Miller D. and Roo G.D, Integrating City Planning and
13

Environmental Improvement: Practicable Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2004. 14. MacKenzie S. H. Ecosystem Management in the Great Lakes: Some Observations from Three RAP Sites, Journal of Great Lakes Research, Vol 19, issue 1, 1993. 15. Newman P. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices, Washington, DC, USA: Island Press, 2008 16. Niemel, J. Ecology and urban planning, Biodiversity and Conservation, 1999. 17. Oostreveld J. Sustainable Downtown Urban Renewal: Redefining Yonge Street. In Miller D. and Roo G.D, Integrating City Planning and Environmental Improvement: Practicable Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2004. 18. Partidario M. and Voogd H. An Endeavour at Integration in Environmental Analysis and Planning. In Miller D. and Roo G.D, Integrating City Planning and Environmental Improvement: Practicable Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2004. 19. Piro R. Effectiveness of Interjurisdictional Growth Management: Integrated Local, Regional and State Planning inWashington State, USA. . In Miller D. and Roo G.D, Integrating City Planning and Environmental Improvement: Practicable Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2004 20. Slocombe D. Scott, Environmental Planning, Ecosystem Science and Ecosystem Approaches For integrating Environment and Development, Environmental Management Vol. 7 No. 3, Springer-Verlag New York Inc, 1993. 21. Slocombe D. Scott, Implementing Ecosystem-based Management: Development of Theory, Practice and Research for Planning and Managing a Region, Bio Science Vol. 43 No. 9, American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1992. 22. Staalduine V. and Simons T. Environment and Space: Towards More Cohesion in Environmental and Spatial Policy. In Miller D. and Roo G.D, Integrating City Planning and Environmental Improvement: Practicable Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2004. 23. Sheperd A. and Ortolano L. Strategic Environmental Assesment for Sustainable Urban Development, Environmental Impact Asses Reveiew, 1996. 24. Stren R., White R. and Whitney J. Sustainable Cities: Urbanization and the Environment in International Perspective, Westview Press, Boulder, CO., 1992. 25. The Brundtland Commission, Towards Sustainable Development, 1987. In Wheeler Stephen M. and Beatly Timothy, The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, The RoutledgeUrbanReaderSeries,2004. 26. Tripathi A.K., Srivastava A.K and Pandey S.N. Advances in Environmental Science, Ashish Publishing House New Delhi, 1993. 27. Turner, N. The Earths Blanket: Traditional Teachings for Sustainable Living. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005 28. UN-Habitat, Planning Sustainable Cities: Global Reports on Human Settlements, Earthscan Publications, 2009 29. UNU/IAS Report, Defining an Ecosystem Approach to Urban Management and Policy Development, 2003. 30. Wackernagel M. and Rees W., Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on Earth, New Society Publishers, 1996 31. World Development Report (WDR): Agriculture for Development, The World Bank, Washington DC, 2007.
14

32. Yin Robert K. Applications of Case Study Research second edition, Sage Publications Inc., 2003. 33. Zipperer W., Wu J., Pouyat R. and Steward, The Application of Ecological Principles to Urban and Urbanizing Landscapes, Ecological Applications, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2000.

15

Annexes A1. First Group Questions

How are the urban planning and environmental management bodies setup in the municipality? Do they exist as separate entities? How do you compromise between different economic, social and political priorities and ecological standards while planning? How would you characterize the legislative and political support for ecological planning? How would you characterize the autonomy of the planning department and the city in general to set forward ecological plans and standards? Do you make use of current and up to date research and information in your planning? What are the backgrounds of the planning team (sociologists, environmentalists, economists, anthropologists etc) This is to find out whether there is a multidisciplinary approach in planning Do you have a clear vision that every planning activity should pertain to? Do you advocate stakeholder participation in planning? What methods do you use to influence the public attitude towards environmentally sustainable choices?

A2. Second Group Questions

Is there any legislation that supports the incorporation of environment sustainability variables into urban planning or is it just up to the will of the urban planners to consider environmental variables? Legislations could include European Union legislations, state legislations and Municipality or regional legislations/agreements How is the financial commitment of the municipality in executing environmental agendas? How much power and say does the environment department have in the urban planning of the city of Malm? How much power and say does the environment department have in the urban planning of the city of Malm? Can an urban plan be approved without the consent of the environment department?

16