FORESCENE Budapest Summary Part 1

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
PRIORITY 8.1
THEMATIC WORKSHOP ON INFRASTRUCTURES/LAND USE

BUDAPEST, 26-27 OCTOBER 2006
PART 1: SUMMARY REPORT

D.2.2.3
February 2007
The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)
Jozsef Szlezak and Robert Nemeskeri
1
Table of contents
Table of contents ......................................................................................................................2
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................4
Background .............................................................................................................................4
The objectives of the workshop ...............................................................................................4
The major themes and foci of workshop ..................................................................................5
The participants and agenda of the workshop .........................................................................5
Remarks and limitations of the workshop ................................................................................6
2. Highlights from the workshop on some overall assumptions / holistic approaches
towards sustainability...............................................................................................................7
Strong versus weak sustainability, the internal and external conditions of sustainability and
intra-generational justice..........................................................................................................7
Sustainable ecosystems thinking.............................................................................................9
Framework of values and norms at present and as desired in the future ............................... 10
The Helmholtz-concept concept of sustainability ................................................................... 10
3. Discussion of the major themes of the workshop .........................................................13
3.1. Urban sprawl.............................................................................................................. 13
Vision .................................................................................................................................... 13
Potential strategies and policy tools/instruments ................................................................... 14
3.2. Brownfields / industrial regions ............................................................................... 17
Vision .................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3. Transport infrastructure............................................................................................ 19
Vision .................................................................................................................................... 20
3.4. Resource management and the built environment ................................................. 23
Vision .................................................................................................................................... 23
3.5. Sustainable construction .......................................................................................... 25
Vision .................................................................................................................................... 25
3.6. Discussion of the particular approaches invited to provide input in the thematic
subject ................................................................................................................................. 28
Sustainable ecosystems thinking........................................................................................... 28
2
Ecological Economics and Governance................................................................................. 28
4. Interactive paper board exercises on the first- and second days of the workshop.....30
First day ................................................................................................................................ 30
Second day ........................................................................................................................... 33
5. Derived Sustainability Scenario Elements (SSEs) .........................................................35
Derived SSEs related to the discussed overall assumptions / holistic views towards
sustainability.......................................................................................................................... 35
Derived SSEs related to Urban sprawl:.................................................................................. 36
Derived SSEs related to Brownfields/industrial regions *: ....................................................... 36
Derived SSEs related to Transport infrastructure*: ................................................................ 36
Derived SSEs related to Resource management and the built environment: ......................... 37
Derived SSEs related to Sustainable construction: ................................................................ 37
6. Annex I, The agenda of the workshop ............................................................................38
3
1. Introduction
Background
In workpackage 1 of the project core partners performed an analysis for each of the three pre-
selected FORESCENE environmental topics: water, biodiversity/soil/landscape, and resource use
and waste. The objective of the analyses was to define problems, important driving forces and
policy objectives related to each of the three topics in focus considering also economic and social
aspects. The results of workpackage 1 were combined in the first FORESCENE integration
workshop, the objective of which was to define crosscutting drivers and priority activity/policy fields.
In workpackage 2 the project changes the perspective from problem orientation in environmental
topics to activity and/or policy areas in the following three pre-selected fields: agriculture,
industry/economy, and infrastructures/land use. The objective of this workpackage is to define
potential long term goals towards sustainability and to describe related essential requirements of
sustainable development, as well as potential strategies and/or policies that could help reaching
those goals in each of the pre-selected fields.
To do so, the methodology of the project has been to organise three thematic workshops, one in
each of the pre-selected activity and/or policy areas. On these thematic workshops the invited
experts were asked to try to envision a future state of affairs, related to the particular subject of the
workshop, which is presumably sustainable in a positive manner, i.e. not only in the sense of
avoiding and mitigating current problems, but also through answering what the desired future
should look like and which prerequisites are considered essential for sustainability. In the next
phase of workpackage 2 the results of the three thematic workshops will be combined and
consolidated on the second FORESCENE integration workshop.
This paper summarises the results of the thematic workshop “infrastructures/land use”, which was
held as a two day event and took place in Budapest, on the 26th and 27th of October, 2006.
The objectives of the workshop
In line with the objectives of workpackage 2, the two days workshop has been structured to gather
answers for the following questions.
WHERE SHALL WE GO TO? - Developing a vision for sustainability (first day)

The key questions of the day were:
- How a desired long-term vision of sustainability for each activity/policy field would look like,
considering essentials of environmental, economic and social development?
- Which essential elements of sustainability that are integral part of the vision can be defined for
the purpose of developing sustainability scenarios?
- How can current policy objectives be translated to match the envisioned sustainability
scenarios?
HOW DO WE GET THERE? - Potential strategies and policy tools/instruments to reach the
envisioned future (second day)
The key questions of the day were:
- What requirements and potential measures could be considered promising to reach the defined
sustainability scenario?
- Which measures address activities or driving forces that show cross-sectoral impact, and
hence are potentially of multi-beneficial effect without shifting problems?
4
The major themes and foci of workshop
The pre-selected major themes and foci of the thematic workshop included – sustainability issues
associated with –:
- Urban sprawl;
- Brownfield / industrial regions;
- Transport infrastructure;
- Resource and waste management in the built environment (including water management);
- Sustainable Construction;
Particular, horizontal approaches invited to provide input in the thematic subject were:
- Sustainable ecosystems thinking, and
- Ecological Economics.
The participants and agenda of the workshop
The participants and speakers of the workshop, listed in alphabetical order, were the following:
- Dr Stefan Bringezu, Wuppertal Institute;
- Professor Ian Cooper*, University of Salford & Eclipse Research Consultants;
- Dr Oliver Dilly*, Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus;
- Dr Katharine N. Farrell*, UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle;
- Dr Tamas Fleischer*, Hungarian Academy of Sciences;
- Professor Angela Hull*, Centre for Environment and Planning University of the West of
England;
- Dr Paul Nathanail*, CABERNET Network & University of Nottingham;
- Mr Robert Nemeskeri*, the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe
(REC);
- Dr Henning Nuissl*, UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle;
- Mr Christian Radtke, Wuppertal Institute;
- Mr Jozsef Szlezak, the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC);
- Dr Mats Svensson*, Lund University;
- Professor Gabor Vida*, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
The agenda of the workshop is included in Annex I of this report.
*
Speaker and participant of the workshop
5
Remarks and limitations of the workshop
Sustainable development is by now a broadly accepted concept in science as well as in politics as

the desired form of future development. However, one has to bear in mind that sustainable
development is a largely normative concept and therefore it cannot be completely deducted
scientifically and has to be the subject to a discourse process including relevant societal groups.
During the Budapest workshop, in line with this presumption, there were varying approaches
presented towards conceptualizing, planning and managing sustainability amongst the invited
environmental researchers. For some of the experts the more pragmatic, practical, measurable
goals and targets and ensuing policy tools and measures – as has been defined by the terms of
reference of the FORESCENE project – seem to provide suitable answers, for others, many of the
currently feasible solutions, inside the context of the perceived realities of the European Union,
seem insufficient. During the FORESCENE workshop in Budapest, while discussing the core
elements of sustainability scenarios in the area of built environments, including infrastructure, and
more generally land use, these two main views have become prevalent. This summary report of
the event attempts to provide a balanced picture on these differing approaches presented by the
participating environmental experts.
6
2. Highlights from the workshop on some overall assumptions / holistic
approaches towards sustainability
One of the main objectives of the workshop was to outline a desired future regarding the specific
FORESCENE activity and/or policy area “infrastructures and land use” in general and in the pre-
selected major themes of the workshop – urban sprawl, brownfield / industrial regions, transport
infrastructure, resource and waste management in the built environment and sustainable
construction – in particular. However, additionally to the description of particular requirements with
sustainable development and related partial visions pertaining to the above major themes, several
more holistic approaches and/or overall assumptions and recommendations towards sustainability
were outlined by the experts on the workshop.
In the view of the authors of this report it is important and useful to summarise these overall
assumptions, holistic approaches and recommendations towards sustainability because they
compliment the principally bottom-up approach of the FORESCENE thematic workshops – i.e. in
which the desired future is defined by activity and/or policy areas and by the major themes under
these areas – with some top-down, holistic insight into the “World Problematique1”.
In the following sections these overall assumptions and holistic approaches as presented by the
speakers of the Budapest workshop are summarised.
Strong versus weak sustainability, the internal and external conditions of sustainability and
intra-generational justice
Dr Fleisher of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences started his presentation by pointing out that it is
essential to distinguish between the so-called “weak” and “strong” forms of sustainability, which are
two competing concepts (see below), and it is necessary to be very clear about the preferred way
of development in this respect from the beginning. Furthermore, the “internal” and “external”
conditions of sustainability were defined, which are, according to Dr Fleisher, to be taken as
preconditions when defining any vision on sustainable development. Last but not least it was called
into attention that it is inevitable to consider intra-generational justice equally important with the
requirement of inter-generational solidarity, which latter has already gained general acceptance.
According to the “weak sustainability” concept the depletion or degradation of natural resources
may happen as long as such depletion is offset by increases in the stocks of other forms of capital
(for example, by investing royalties from depleting mineral reserves in factories). Strongly
contested with this view and according to the concept of “strong sustainability” all forms of capital
must be maintained intact independent of one another. The different forms of capital are not
interchangeable or replaceable, but rather compliment each other. The implicit assumption of the
concept of strong sustainability is that natural capital provides essential, so called ecosystem
services (e.g. such us provision of clean water and air, biomass, pollination of crops etc.), which
services, assuming the current scale and growth rate of environmental pollution, cannot be
replaced by human-made artificial systems at all or in the scale necessary for human survival.
According to the definition of strong sustainability by Herman Daly there are ecological limits to
1
“World Problematique” is a concept created by the Club of Rome to describe the set of the crucial problems – political,
social, economic, technological, environmental, psychological and cultural – facing humanity. More information on this
term is available at http://www.clubofrome.org/about/world_problematique.php
7
economic growth – which is in strong correlation with the degradation of ecosystems and the
spread of human made artificial systems at present – and these limits must be respected. The
assumed systemic interrelationship between of environment-, society- and economy is
metaphorically represented by Figure 1.
The external conditions of sustainability were defined by Dr Fleisher – after Herman Daly – the
following:
- the rate of utilization of resources (materials and energy) cannot exceed their rate of
regeneration;
- the rate of emission of pollutants cannot exceed their possible rate of absorption.
These two criteria are sufficient for external sustainability, however, Dr Fleisher remarked, there is
room for debate about whether they are necessary or too strict. Furthermore, sometimes a third
criterion is added: utilization of non-renewable resources has to be limited to a rate no greater than
that at which the resource can be replaced by renewable sources (again after Daly).
ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMY
SOCIETY
Figure 1 The systemic interrelationships of environment-, society- and economy according to

the concept of strong sustainability
The internal (system-operational) condition of sustainability according to Dr Fleisher is that

advancement of any development trajectory, defined by the external conditions of sustainability,
are to be ensured by the internal self-regulating processes. In this way the system to be sustained
(in this case the human made built environment) does not need to be adjusted by irregular
interventions, but stability and harmony with the external conditions are ensured by internal
feedback mechanisms.
Intra-generational solidarity could be regarded as the spatial extension of solidarity (while inter-
generational solidarity is about the temporal dimensions of justice). It was defined as “meeting our
needs without compromising the ability of others to meet their own needs”. It is worthwhile to
underline regarding this concept that while intergenerational solidarity is a one-directional,
asymmetric relation, the intra-generational relation is two-directional, Dr Fleisher added. Our late
descendants could hardly influence the quality of life of current generations, while on the other
hand in intra-generational context we are able to formulate the requirement of spatial solidarity
(see above), but the possible mutual effects are not covered by that, as the reciprocal relation is
also possible, namely that the way-of-life of others may also compromise our possibility in meeting
our own needs.
8
Dr Fleisher suggested that for the purpose of scenario development the FORESCENE consortium
should adopt the requirements of strong sustainability, taking the external and internal conditions of
sustainability as boundary conditions to any future development and last but not least puts special
emphasis on the aspects of intra-generational justice, complementary to the notion of inter-
generational solidarity.
Sustainable ecosystems thinking

When discussing the overarching sustainability needs for ecosystems, the experts focused on
ecology and biodiversity, and on the principles of and developments in ecological economics.
Professor Vida of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences pointed out in his presentation that in order
to achieve sustainability we may study the natural ecosystems – where long term sustainability and
sustainable development have been the norm for more than three billion years – and compare
them with the man-made ones, such as the agro- and urban ecosystems. By doing so, we soon
realize that ecosystem organizations in the built environment are getting increasingly different.
They do not close the material cycles and low biodiversity are responsible for inefficient energy
utilization and the lack of resilience or stability. Figure 2 below visualises the difference between
the natural and artificial, man-made environments.
atmosphere
SUN
DIVERSE DIVERSE NATURAL

VEGETATION HERBIVORES CARNIVORES
DECOMPOSERS
soil
E C O S Y S T E M
SUN
products
HOMO
AGRO
MONO- products
FERTILIZER CULTURE ANIMAL-
HUSBANDRY
+ weeds
pollutants
DECOMPOSERS
CULTIVATION
heat, light air pollutants

URBAN
Products and raw materials HUMAN products

ECONOMY
sewage and
solid waste
GREEN SPACE
Figure 2 Comparison of natural-, urban- and agro-ecosystems
According to Professor Vida, the ecosystem attribute differences are greatest in (bio)diversity and
this is why agro- and man-made ecosystems require substantial extra energy and material input
and at the same time produce waste (while natural systems are self-sustaining and the concept of
9
waste is unknown). What is more, the natural ecosystems are the surviving products of trillions of
former experiments in their long history, presently forming co-evolved and co-adapted
communities.
Therefore, when discussing the desired future regarding sustainable development one has to bear
in mind that
- it is necessary to create and maintain greater biodiversity within our agro- and urban
ecosystems, and
- the surrounding (and enclave) natural and semi-natural ecosystems have to be preserved
as sources of ecosystem services for they are indispensable in the maintenance of man-
made ecosystems.
Professor Vida suggests that for the purpose of scenario development the FORESCENE
consortium adopts the notion of sustainable ecosystems thinking.
Framework of values and norms at present and as desired in the future

Many times during the presentations speakers referred to societal norms and values which
reinforce unsustainable development patterns. Professor Vida in his presentation provided a
comprehensive framework contrasting present and alternative (envisioned) objectives, values and
norms. This framework is presented in Table 1 below.
PRESENT SITUATION (objectives, values, ALTERNATIVES – A VISION FRAMEWORK

norms)
Growth Equilibrium
Competition Cooperation, mutualism
Material wealth Mental health
Soft sustainability Hard sustainability
Business spirit dominance Ethical, intellectual, aesthetic prevalence
Profit orientation Public welfare orientation
Selfish consideration (excuse: invisible hand) Altruistic consideration
Consumer society (disposables) Sustainable society
Progress indicator: GDP growth Evaluation: ISEW, GPI, etc.
Neoliberal economics Ecological economics
Life is struggle Life is good
Never enough „Logic of Sufficiency” (T. Princeton)
Table 1 Present and alternative (envisioned) objectives, values and norms
It is suggested that the for the purpose of scenario development the FORESCENE consortium
adopts the above framework of alternative objectives, values and norms as prerequisite to
sustainable development.
The Helmholtz-concept concept of sustainability

The so-called Helmholtz-concept concept of sustainability (the HGF model of sustainability) has
been developed in the context of the German Sustainable Development Strategy by the Helmholtz
Association of German Research Centres (HGF). The concept was outlined by Dr Nuissl in the
10
context of discussing the major workshop theme, urban sprawl. The HGF model of sustainability is
outlined in this chapter because it provides a comprehensive framework of assumptions and
recommendations towards sustainability, which framework is recommended to be taken into
account during scenario development in the project.
According to its authors, the HGF model of sustainability is to provide a contribution to the efforts of
“operationalising” sustainable development, aiming at achieving two goals: first, integration of
issues through consistent orientation towards the suggested three constitutive elements, intra-
intergenerational justice, global perspective and anthropocentric view, to avoid, at least initially, the
controversial and inadequate debate on the appropriate relative weight between the development
dimensions; and second, a coherent and broad differentiation in order to avoid that the term
sustainable development becomes or remains arbitrary.
In contrast to other existing approaches, the basic idea of this integrative concept was not to start
from the separated “classical pillars” of societal development (economy, ecology, social and
institutional aspects), but from three constitutive elements of sustainable development: The first
element is the postulate of intra- and intergenerational justice - two perspectives which are strongly
interrelated and have to be understood in equal terms. Both the several present large distribution
inequalities and the increasing burden shift at the expense of future generations have to be seen
as main causes for some of the pressing problems on the national and global level at present, e. g.
environmental degradation, poverty, indebtedness or social and global instabilities. The second
element is the global perspective, due to the continuously intensified globalisation processes, the
global character of many present problems, and the resulting requirements of improved and
intensified responsible cooperation between rich and poor countries to solve these problems.
Finally, the third element consists in the anthropocentric view, i.e. human needs and their
satisfaction are in the focus of the concept, considering the conservation of nature as a
prerequisite for this.
In the next step of devising this model of sustainability the above outlined elements were
“translated” into three so-called sustainability goals, which have been defined the following:
- secure human existence as the most fundamental goal;
- maintaining society’s productive potential, including the material preconditions of societal
development, in economic terms: natural, man-made and human capital;
- preserving society’s options for development and action, including immaterial aspects and
needs.
These goals are highly interdependent and underline the integrative character of the approach. In a
further step, the goals were specified by sustainability rules, understood as action-guiding
principles, building the core element of the concept (see Table 2, next page).
The further particularities of the model are not discussed here, as it is not the aim of this paper.
Further information about the concept can be found e.g. in Kopfmüller, J. (2006), Sustainable
Development in Germany - evaluation framework, core problems, strategic requirements. (At the
time of the workshop a forthcoming article in the journal “European Environment”).
It was recommended by Dr Nuissl that the HGF concept of sustainability is taken into account
when developing scenarios in the FORESCENE project, especially regarding the major theme,
urban sprawl.
11
Table 2 The framework of the Helmholtz-concept of sustainability
12
3. Discussion of the major themes of the workshop
3.1. Urban sprawl
Discussions on urban sprawl and the related sustainability issues as well as their potential solution
were induced and based mainly on the following two presentations given by Dr Nuissl of UFZ
Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle:
- Land Use & Urban Sprawl – Implications for Sustainability (on the first day), and
- Towards Sustainable Land Use Patterns - Potential Policy Measures and Instruments (on
the second day).
Vision
To define a vision of sustainability regarding the future evolution of urban areas, the “key
sustainability problems” of urban sprawl, as they were presented based on the “URBS PANDENS”
project 2, could be taken as a starting point. The most pressing sustainability problems in terms of
negative consequences of urban sprawl were found to be the following in this project3:
- Disturbance in water balance mainly due to sealing of surfaces;
- Social segregation due to the social homogeneity of suburban residential areas;
- Uneven distribution of burden (e.g. isolation of “housewives”; decline in service provision
and infrastructures for the population remaining in the inner city);
- Rising tax revenues (and additional expenses) in ‘sprawling’ communes;
- Fiscal constraints in the core cities due to a declining tax base in the core cities;
- General increase in car traffic;
- Traffic jams and their consequences;
- Increase in energy consumption for transportation;
- Increase in air pollution.
The goal of the referred exercise in the URBS PANDENS project, resulting in the above list, was to
define the most pressing sustainability problems associated with sprawl. Nonetheless, it is fair to
derive a partial vision related to the future evolution of urban areas from this list, by assuming that
in the desired future all these most pressing negative consequences of sprawl are mitigated and/or
eliminated. It is to be added to the above list of most pressing problems that, according to the
opinion of the same group of experts in the URBS PANDENS project, the negative consequences
of sprawl cannot be reduced without reducing the actual “amount” of sprawl, which statement
should be taken as a very important boundary condition to this derived vision.
2
An FP5 research project: Urban Sprawl – European Patterns, Environmental Degradation and Sustainable
Development (URBS PANDENS). More information is available at: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/urbs/
3
It is based on a survey of 30 expert professional planners and academics associated with the seven case study areas
of the URBS PANDENS project. More information is available at http://www.pik-
potsdam.de/urbs/projekt/consequences.pdf
13
All in all, in the above way a desired future of urban areas and related human existence may be
envisioned in terms of a state of affairs, in which the most pressing problems of sprawl (as
perceived in the present) are solved. However, to compliment this partial vision by defining a much
comprehensive (which is not constrained to the problems associated to sprawl) hypothetical
framework of sustainability and at the same time by abstracting from the problems of the present to
a larger extent (at least as far as it is possible) is most probably inevitable. For this, Dr Nuissl
suggested applying the already presented Helmholtz-concept of sustainability to the phenomenon
of urban sprawl. It is to be remarked that the Helmholtz-concept of sustainability has been
developed in the general context of the preparation of the German Sustainable Development
Strategy. Therefore, it is a model that must have good and realistic connection with both the
present and the desired future and can be taken as a first framework of goals towards more
sustainable futures.
Last but not least, regarding the future of land use in general, as an example, the ambitious goal of
Germany to decrease in the rate of land consumption was referred by Dr Nuissl. Germany has set
an ambitious goal in its strategy for sustainable development to reduce the current rate of land
consumption from around 100 ha a day to only 30 ha a day in 2020. According to Dr Nuissl, whilst
from a scientific point of view this goal can be criticised for various reasons (too unspecific; impacts
of sprawl cannot really be rooted back to the overall/aggregated level of land consumption etc.), it
is easy to grasp and allows for the logics of the political process. Furthermore, since this goal is
“uni-dimensional”, i.e. it focuses on only one “variable” (land consumption), it could be measured
with moderate efforts (as most developed countries have got some kind of land use statistics) and
could be communicated easily 4.
Potential strategies and policy tools/instruments

According to Dr Nuissl, the discourse on urban planning in general, urban sprawl in particular, has
yielded a wide variety of suggestion how to intervene into the process of urban sprawl. These
instruments (including ‘ideas for future instruments’) can be organised at least in the following two
ways.
Firstly, one can define the underlying strategies that should be pursued by means of these
instruments. There are six important strategies:
- Restricting the development of land;
- Raising the awareness of politicians for the negative effects of sprawl;
- Improving the quality of the inner city environment;
- Meeting the demand for housing in the inner city;
- Mitigating the competition between municipalities / Restraining the desire of local
authorities to grow;
- Abolish economic incentives for suburban development.
As long as these strategies are not concerned with a general feature of sprawl (which is only the
case with the first of these strategies: “restricting the development of land”) they address particular
causes (i.e. driving forces) of urban sprawl, which they try to mitigate.
4
Such or similar goals may have been set in the Sustainable Development Strategies of other countries too, however, it
could not be the task of the workshop to collect such information.
14
Secondly, one can distinguish at least three modes of intervention:
- Regulation/Ban;
- Persuasion/management;
- Modification of incentives.
Whilst the first two modes of intervention (policy implementation) belong to the genuine tool box of
spatial planning the latter belongs to realm of economics and calls for an integration of traditional
land use policy with tax policies, i.e. taxation law in general.
The following table provided by Dr Nuissl relates the most prominent policy instruments discussed
with respect to urban sprawl to both the strategy they are designed to pursue and the mode of
intervention they could be assigned to (denoted by the colours – red: regulative instruments; blue:
persuasive instruments; green: economic instruments aimed at a modification of incentive
structures). Even though the modes of intervention are ideal-types, meaning that instruments can
belong to more than one mode (e.g. they can be both regulatory and persuasive) most instruments
can clearly be related to one of the modes.
Strategy Instruments for implementing strategy

(1) Legal plans providing for a "non sprawled" land
use pattern:
- local level
Restricting the
- regional level
development of
- supra -regional level (federal states etc.)
land
(ad 1) Defining green belts, urban growth boundaries etc.
(2) Imposing strict regulations on suburban large scale
retail
Raising the (3) Land use monitoring (including a monitoring of
awareness consequences of land use change and sprawl)
15
Table 3 Different strategies and instruments to curb the negative sustainability consequences
of urban sprawl
Dr Nuissl found it important to point out that, even though the above table may seem to be
comprehensive in terms of offered strategies and instruments, one could of course conceive
additional instruments on urban sprawl. Furthermore, and what is even more important, the
suitability of strategies and instruments will very much depend on the legal and administrative
context in which they are to be applied. For instance, instruments that aim at a mitigation of
competition between municipalities are only appropriate in countries where municipalities have
considerable power and pursue individual interests thereby fuelling urban sprawl. Other examples
are the many instruments related to taxation. Their application requires a political context in which
it is acceptable that taxation is used as a means to achieve certain policy goals beyond the mere
coverage of (external) costs incurred by the state, i.e. by society. Insofar, the application of
instruments needs to be geared to the respective political and administrative context as well as to
the actual state and drivers of urban development and urban sprawl.
Last but not least the following final remarks were made on the difficulty to give a general
recommendation as to policy instruments on urban sprawl:
16
- It is hardly possible to give a general recommendation how to manage urban sprawl;
- Strategies and instruments have to be chosen according to both
- the specificities of national legal frameworks, as well as
- the local problems and conditions of urban development;
- Strategies to curb sprawl should endeavour to address those actors who are susceptible to
the 'appeal' of urban areas (re-urbanisation strategies).
- In cases where urban sprawl is continuously being supported by fiscal and legal incentives
as well as by infrastructure investments, the chances for intervention at the local or regional
level are fairly limited.
3.2. Brownfields / industrial regions
Discussions on land use in industrial regions and/or brownfield sites and the related sustainability
issues as well as their potential solution were induced and based mainly on the following two
presentations:
- Land Use in Industrial Regions – A Vision of Sustainability, by Dr Oliver Dilly of
Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus (based on the interim results of the
SENSOR project 5); and
- Brownfield versus Greenfield – Potential Policy Measures and Actions in Europe, by Dr
Paul Nathanail of CABERNET Network 6 & University of Nottingham.
Vision
Dr Dilly provided his insight into the subject based on the EU-FP6 integrated project, “SENSOR”,
which will develop science based ex-ante Sustainability Impact Assessment Tools (SIAT) to
support decision making on policies related to multifunctional land use in European regions.
SENSOR responds to the European objectives of sustainable development and better regulation.
Module 6 of the project “sustainability issues in sensitive regions” addresses four types of sensitive
areas: mountains, coastal zones, islands and post-industrialised land.
According to Dr Dilly a vision of sustainability for land use in post-industrialised land should use the
regional potentials and will need to address multifunctional optimisation of land use, e.g. for food,
energy and tourism. However, he added, further in-depth research is necessary to better
understand the impacts of land use changes, especially for bio-energy production and on cross-
cutting ecological-, social- and economic consequences. In light of the results of this research,
current European impact assessment guidelines should be revised.
Continuing this vision, it has been pointed out that special attention needs to be given on
contaminated sites, e.g. when intended for use for food production. Awareness has to be increased
on the potential effects of pollution on life through the food chain, plus on energy and water use
efficiency of the various agricultural processes. Economic growth needs to be adjusted to social
and environmental goals, and the anthropocentric perspective on the need of biodiversity should
5
An FP6 project in the priority area “Global Change of Ecosystems”: Sustainability Impact Assessment - Tools for
Environmental, Social and Economic Effects of Multifunctional Land Use in European Regions (SENSOR), More
information is available at: http://www.zalf.de/home_ip-sensor/index.html
6
Concerted Action On Brownfield And Economic Regeneration Network (CABERNET). More information is available at:
http://www.cabernet.org.uk
17
be sensitized. In highly populated industrial regions, the ethical basis on human equitability will
become an important issue, and the co-operation paradigm (social cohesion) will be discussed in
comparison to competition. Business as usual is not sustainable, and non-technocratic but
integrative management is needed with the use of step change and paradigm shift, argued Dr Dilly.
In his view, energy production based on biomass harvested from vast abandoned industrial sites,
substantial quantity of land left behind by formerly industrialised systems, is likely to become a key
in helping Europe to achieve its objectives for economic growth, jobs and sustainability.
Dr Nathanail represented the CABERNET Network, which objective is “to enhance the
rehabilitation of brownfield sites within the context of sustainable development of European cities,
by sharing experiences from across Europe, providing new management strategies, innovative
tools, and a framework for coordinated research activities”.
In his presentation Dr Nathanail explained that brownfields are not necessarily contaminated, but
have been used and are currently abandoned, not utilized. Generic brownfield regeneration
objectives include the creation of new jobs, protection of valuable green fields and habitats,
catalyst role in the regeneration of surrounding areas, recognition of former industrial and cultural
history, economic approach to land remediation and in the same time to property development by
the utilization of synergies. At the same time, brownfield redevelopments help to avoid the negative
effects on surrounding properties, e.g., increase property values, decrease the risks of cross
contamination, and attenuate problems associated with places favouring antisocial behaviour.
There were also elements of a vision of sustainability in Dr Nathanail’s presentation, according to
which in the envisioned future developers will gradually be oriented towards brownfield
development and development on greenfield sites will eventually stop. Very important for the
realisation of this vision, argued Dr Nathanail, is that the attitude of developers towards brownfield
sites needs to be changed and the benefits and/or not necessarily negative character of brownfield
developments as explained above are to be fully acknowledged.

According to Dr Nathanail, the nature and character of brownfield sites may differ remarkably, in
accordance with the particularities of a potential development project. Therefore, for the
formulation of any governmental policy aiming at the enhanced reuse of brownfields, the main
underlying factors in direct relationship with the potential success or failure of developments should
be defined. The following four main factors are suggested to be differentiated:
- site preparation;
- the intended use of the site;
- economic viability of the development project; and
- the legal framework.
When designing policies, all these factors need to be taken into account and considered in their
interaction. Furthermore, since these factors can be good leverage points for intervention, they
should be in the foci of policies aiming at reusing brownfields.
The most important suggested branches of policy directions for driving brownfield developments
include:
18
- Reduce the availability of greenfield land (thereby diverting development interest towards
brownfields);
- Increase the take-up of viable brownfield sites (encourage the developers to deliberately
seek for brownfields);
- Increase the availability of viable brownfields (reducing the abnormality of sites and the cost
of development and/or increasing values);
- Reduce the creation of “difficult” sites (obliging existing land owners to take more
responsibility);
- Increase the use of “difficult” sites for public uses (implying greater public sector
intervention);
- Education and awareness raising;
Furthermore, it is to be remarked that the large variety in the context of brownfields implies that a
mix of policy responses will be required. Last but not least, Dr Nathanail pointed out that:
- a fair balance of “carrots and sticks” are to be provided, however, carrots probably last
longer than sticks (they reproduce);
- prevention is better than cure;
- education and awareness raising have a crucial role;
- Pour décourager les autres – meaning that punishment far heavier than is warranted by the
offence is sometimes necessary to be imposed to prevent others committing the same
offence.
According to Dr Dilly, regarding potential policy tools available for directing development in post-
industrialised land use towards a more sustainable future, impact assessment seems to represent
a key tool. This is particularly relevant to refer to cross-cutting issues, he added, and the
consideration of the DPSIR approach7 therefore seems also helpful.
3.3. Transport infrastructure
Transport infrastructure and related sustainability issues, including a vision and potential policy
measures with special attention on land use of infrastructure were discussed based on the
following two presentations:
- A Vision of Sustainable Transport Infrastructures in Europe, by Dr Tamas Fleischer,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences; and
- Sustainable Transport Policy Measures and Actions: Lessons from England8, by Prof.
Angela Hull, Centre for Environment and Planning University of the West of England.
7
The causal framework for describing the interactions between society and the environment adopted by the European
Environment Agency: driving forces, pressures, states, impacts, responses (DPSIR). Source:
http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/EEAGlossary/D/DPSIR
8
The presentation originally requested was “Towards Sustainable Transport Infrastructures – Potential Policy Measures
and Actions in Europe”.
19
Vision
Dr Fleischer started his presentation with making some overall remarks on the vision of
sustainability, i.e. not specifically from transport infrastructure point of view, but in a more holistic
approach. The concepts of strong versus weak sustainability and the external and internal
conditions of sustainability were reviewed. Those statements are discussed in Chapter 2.
Regarding the envisioned future of transport infrastructure in Europe Dr Fleischer started his vision
by pointing out that the “internal conditions” of sustainability cannot be met by applying
conventional knowledge alone. It will be necessary to develop and sustain “renewable transport
proficiency”. There is a particular importance of both the words “renewable” and “transport” in this
requirement: First of all, what is primarily necessary is transport proficiency, i.e. knowledge in the
operation and interactions of the transport sub-system and the economic- and social systems, and
not environmental proficiency, i.e. knowledge dealing with emission limits etc. and therefore with
the external conditions of sustainability. Second, the word “renewable” in this context means that it
will not be sufficient to have mere engineering/technological and economic knowledge anymore.
These types of conventional knowledge will need to be embedded and integrated with spatial-,
social-, and environmental knowledge and renewed (i.e. reviewed) on a continuous basis.
Continuing his presentation Dr Fleischer remarked that current development patterns in Europe’s
transport infrastructure does not seem to respect the external conditions of sustainability. At the
same time there are self-sustaining and reinforcing mechanisms in place, which stabilise and
intensify current unsustainable development patterns. Therefore, the vision according to Dr
Fleischer in this respect is that:
- internal mechanisms that stabilise and/or intensify unsustainable development patterns will
be broken; and at the same time
- new internal mechanisms capable to bring the operation of Europe’s transport system
within the boundaries of sustainable development will be created.
Last, but not least Dr Fleischer pointed out the following important elements of transition towards
sustainable transport infrastructures:
- shift from supply side to demand side management in transport planning;
- shift from sectoral technologies towards service requirements of local, regional and
magistral connections;
- integration of modes, of policies, of areas, of levels, of decision-makers of
planners/evaluators etc. with each other and with the conventional “supply side” measures
in transport planning.

According to Dr Fleischer the most important areas of policy intervention towards sustainable
transport infrastructures include:
- Policies/measures to curb the overall volume of transport, which requires an integrated
approach to local and regional planning, e.g., the increased multifunctional use of urban
land to aim at more proximity for everyday activities, like commuting to/from work, school,
shopping, sport and entertainment;
20
- Policies/measures to reduce motorized transport, as a subset of the previous option, when
proximity of everyday activities allows for walking and biking, which are ensured by properly
designed infrastructure;
- Policies/measures aiming to change the spatial characteristics for transport, preferring
bottom up developing multilayered, integrated systems versus strongly hierarchical ones;
- Policies/measures changing the temporal characteristics of transport, to limit traffic in
certain periods, e.g., taxing special corridors, gates, bridges, tunnels during rush hours or
prohibiting heavy trucks moving during the weekends;
- Policies/measures influencing the modes of transport, e.g., driving – by economic
instruments – freight from roads to rails and waterways, which requires substantial
modernisation of these alternative systems, and providing attractive alternative to private
car transport by sophisticated, integrated, fast, safe and comfortable public transport
systems;
- Policies/measures aiming to decrease pollution generated by vehicles, e.g., by increasing
fuel efficiency or applying catalysers, however all the gains by these per unit measures are
overtaken by the ever increasing number of vehicles with higher volumes of fuels being
burnt;
- Policies/measures towards the social integration of transport, meaning that instead of
focusing on the supply side (providing more and more vehicles and ways to travel),
integrated development that includes transport issues should focus on the real needs,
demands of people, without much sacrifice people should be able to live quality life in well
designed, built and maintained built environments;
- Appreciation of existing systems with minor improvements and maintenance, in order to
prudently utilise existing resources.
Professor Hull presented examples of sustainable transport policies and measures in the United
Kingdom. Summarising governmental tools in the UK for achieving sustainable transport practices
she provided the following two tables.
21
Resources - Land/infrastructure Legal/ Regulatory Powers
National Finance: Vehicle licensing and taxation; EU Directives: e.g. Habitats; SEA 9;
Fuel taxation
National:
Local Finance/ subsidy:
Regulatory agencies; e.g. Office of the Rail Regulator
Annual Transport Settlement 10
Mandatory requirements for LTAs to prepare specific
Specific allocations: e.g. Challenge funds for improving plans; to set road traffic reduction targets, carry out
bus services studies of road traffic accidents
Hypothecated receipts from road tolling and workplace Discretionary responsibilities
parking charges
Knowledge/ Skills
Direct Development/ Management Powers Information and Guidance

National executive agencies, e.g. Highway Agency; Transport + Planning Policy Statements
Network Rail;
Regional Spatial Strategies
Local Transport Authorities: maintenance of bridges, Local Transport Plan
lamp standards etc
Local Development Framework
Air Quality Management Plan
Table 4 Government tools in the UK: Implementation of transport policy
Resources Legal/ Regulatory Powers

EU Structural Funds etc. EU policy: e.g. Competition % Monopolies; SEA, EIA 12,
Air quality, noise; C02 reduction agreements
Public sector land ownership: 12% in UK
National:
National Taxation Policy: workers/ firms
Regulatory mechanisms: land use planning
Government spend: health, education, defence,
business support Public sector performance management
Knowledge/ Skills / think-tanks Disability/ equal opportunities legislation
Departments11;: DfT DTI; DCLG; DEFRA Treasury value-for-money criteria
Direct Development/ Management Power Information and Guidance

Government estate and fleet management policies Sustainable Development Strategy
Government procurement policies Health policy
Packaging/ product recycling policies Sustainable Communities policy
Cross-cutting Local Area Agreements, Corporate Plans,
Community Strategies
Table 5 Government tools in the UK: Wider policy sector implementation
9
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
10
Local Transport Authorities (LTAs)
11
Department for Transport (DfT), Department for Trade and Industry (DTI), Department of Communities and Local
Government (DCLG), Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
12
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
22
3.4. Resource management and the built environment
Resource management, including water management in the general context of the built
environment were touched upon by two speakers on the workshop and their subjects were the
following13:
- The Built Environment and the Use of Resources - A Vision of Sustainability, by Mr Robert
Nemeskeri, the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), and
- Towards Sustainable Water Management – Potential Infrastructure Policies and Actions in
Europe, by Dr Mats Svensson, LUCSUS, Lund University.
Vision
According to Mr Nemeskeri the challenge in resource management regarding the built environment
is the development of societal metabolism and associated land use towards sustainability. The
most important issues to be tackled include the structure and volume of metabolism, the disparity
of resource use in regions and economic sectors, the implications of physical growth, the shift from
non-renewable sources to renewable ones and progress on decoupling. Furthermore, the different
issues, e.g. the desired shift to renewables and decoupling should be challenged in a critical
manner, i.e. if it is happening effectively to support an even and just development and if decoupling
is achieved in absolute terms etc.
As an example for a hypothetical model for a sustainable and integrated resource management,
the concept of Natural Capitalism was presented. Natural Capitalism, according to its authors, is a
business and resource management model that synergizes the following four major elements14:
- radical increase in the productivity of resource use;
- shift to biologically inspired production (biomimicry) with closed loops, no waste, and no
toxicity;
- shift in the business model away from the making and selling of "things" to providing the
service that the "thing" delivers;
- reinvestment in natural and human capital.
The Natural Capitalism system model is outlined in Figure 3, next page.
13
It is to be remarked here that “resource and waste management” and “sustainable construction” are two strongly
interrelated subjects and there are varying interpretations on their connection (e.g. according to which the former is the
principal approach towards the later etc.). However, the concept of sustainable construction as discussed during the
workshop goes far beyond the realm of resource and waste management therefore it is discussed under a separate
chapter.
14
See for instance: Hawken, P., Lovins A. and Lovins L. H. (1999): Natural Capitalism, creating the next industrial
revolution. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, New York, London
23
Figure 3 The Natural Capital business and resource management model
An ambitious vision for Europe, argued Mr Nemeskeri, could be that current resource management
practices are gradually shifted towards the model of Natural Capitalism. Furthermore, adding to
this holistic and systemic view towards sustainability regarding the management of resources, the
following essential elements of future development were listed as desirable:
- Decoupling achieved in absolute terms;
- Rebound effects are challenged and finally tackled (i.e. by change in lifestyles);
- Shifting of problems in space and time and in environmental pressure categories are
eliminated, life cycle thinking prevails (cradle to grave and cradle to cradle), optimized and
closed-loop resource flows are realized (e.g. the Natural Capitalism model);
- The share of renewable resources is highly increased;
- Improved criteria and method of measuring and experiencing wealth and well-being
(progress) are developed and applied in everyday economic decisions;
- Optimized, multifunctional use of land is realized to create liveable space and communities,
while maintaining biodiversity;
- Risks and hazards to populations are lowered to manageable levels;
- Ethical behaviour and decision-making prevails;
- Governance principles of precautionary, prevention, proximity, producer responsibility,
polluter/beneficiary pays, etc. prevail and public participation and access to justice is fully
realised.
24
Regarding quantitative targets the following potential objectives were suggested:
- material resource decoupling of factor ten becomes reality in the coming decades;
- the proportion of renewables in the energy mix of Europe will increase up to 50% before a
major and lasting oil crises hits the world economy.
Dr Svensson of Lund University provided input regarding potential strategies and policy
tools/instruments pertaining to sustainable water management. This input is discussed under the
next chapter.

As Mr Nemeskeri gave his presentation on the first day, and related to the vision of future resource
management, there were no potential strategies discussed in this presentation. However, several
potential resource management policies and measures were listed by the experts during the card
board exercise at the end of the second day. The result of this exercise is discussed in Chapter 4.
According to Dr Svensson the most important policy intervention points towards sustainable water
management and related infrastructure include:
- Water pricing;
- Non-point source management in agriculture;
- Improved sewage water treatment in East and South Europe;
- Improved greywater recirculation in industry;
- Cooling water reductions in power stations;
- Improvements in household technologies;
- Improved groundwater protection;
- Improvement of coastal zone management;
- Major changes in agricultural practices and crops.
3.5. Sustainable construction
The major workshop theme, “sustainable construction” was discussed both in terms of a vision and
potential strategies/measures to drive future development towards a more sustainable
development mainly based on the following presentation:
- Towards Sustainable Construction – Potential Policy Measures and Actions in Europe, by
Prof. Ian Cooper, University of Salford & Eclipse Research Consultants.
Vision
According to Prof. Cooper, the draft Urban Thematic Strategy (CEC, 2004b) of the European
Commission saw sustainable construction as: “… a process where all the actors involved …
integrate functional, economic, environmental and quality considerations to produce and renovate
buildings and a built environment that is:
- attractive, durable, functional, accessible, comfortable and healthy to live in and use,
promoting the well-being off all that come into contact with it;
25
- resource efficient, in particular with respect to energy, materials and water, favouring the
use of renewable energy sources and needing little extra energy to function, making
appropriate use of rain water and ground water and correctly handling waste water and
using materials that are environmentally friendly, that can be readily recycled or reused,
that contain no hazardous compounds and can safely be disposed of;
- respects the neighbourhood and local culture and heritage;
- is competitively priced, especially when taking into account longer term considerations such
as maintenance costs, durability and resale prices.”
According to Prof. Cooper’s view, this draft appeared significant because it recognised that
sustainable construction is concerned with more than just the environmental performance of
buildings and the use of resources. It also embraced that sustainable construction has
contributions to make to people’s well-being (quality of life) and, beyond individual buildings, to
neighbourhoods and to cultural heritage, i.e., to the ‘sustainable communities’ level. This draft
therefore could be taken as the vision of European experts for sustainable construction15.
This embedded view of sustainable construction, i.e. when sustainable construction is taken as a
starting point, but at the same time considered in the larger context of broader concepts such us
“sustainable built environment” and “sustainable communities” is depicted in Figure 4 below.
Increasing complexity
Sustainable
Development
Sustainable
Communities
Sustainable built
environment
Sustainable
Construction
Increasing number of actors
16
Figure 4 Four potential landing points for the construction industry on sustainability issues
As the nested boxes imply, the construction industry can simply attempt to put its own (sectoral)
house in order or, by building cross-boundary coalitions with:
- planners, help to deliver a more sustainable built environment, and
- those involved in social and economic development, help to deliver more sustainable
communities.
15
Regrettably however, the final version of the Urban Thematic Strategy (2005), adopted by the Commission in January
2006, emphasised process rather than the substantive themes listed above and mentioned sustainable construction
specifically as a means of addressing climate change, Prof. Cooper added.
16
Based on the Construction Research & Innovation Strategy Panel (1999): Sustainable Construction - Future R&D
Requirements, CRISP, London
26
Some of the EU countries have furthered this policy field and already developed their own vision
and ensuing strategy for sustainable construction. A good example of this is the UK, where it has
been envisioned that construction industry will become capable of delivering its services to
costumers with zero negative impacts on the environment, society and the economy – by 2030.
This might become a standard for entire EU if policy developers manage to agree with politicians.
In order to help developing the leadership necessary for the implementation of this vision in the
UK, the Sustainability Forum (SF) has been set up. The SF will build an alliance within the industry
and beyond to achieve this ambitious goal, will identify all the issues requiring actions, and will
assemble an inventory of the tools available to tackle the following issues effectively:
- zero CO2 emissions from new and existing buildings,
- zero waste to landfill from construction sites,
- 100% use of sustainable materials in construction activities,
- 100% use of whole life costing in the procurement of public and private assets,
- 50% reduction in the use of water in both the construction and operation of buildings,
- application of high aesthetic and quality standards in all building procurement,
- zero skill shortages amongst trainees and the existing workforce in both the professions
and trades,
- zero reported (actual) injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences on construction sites,
- 100% commitments to fair trade and respect for people within the industry and its suppliers.
It was suggested that the above goals could be adopted on the European level.

Regarding the implementation of the above vision of UK construction industry, a potential “policy
toolbox” is shown in Figure 5 next page.
The regulatory and sector-based mechanisms for implementing sustainable construction include:
- National planning regulations,
- Building Regulations and the Code for Sustainable Homes,
- Public Sector Sustainable Procurement practices,
- Regional (economic and spatial) strategies,
- Local Development Frameworks, Development Control and Supplementary Planning
Guidance,
- The construction industry’s own sectoral performance improvement programme.
27
EU Directives Sustainable
National Planning Regulations
Development
National Building Regulations
National Code for Sustainable
Homes E E S Sustainable
n c o Communities
v o c
Public sector Sustainable
Procurement practices
i n i Sustainable
r o built environment
Regional (economic and spatial) a
o m
strategies
n i l
m c Sustainable
e Construction
n
Local planning controls t
a
Local building control
l
Constructing Excellence
Figure 5 A potential “policy toolbox” for sustainable construction in Europe
However, according to Professor Cooper, this should be a formidable array of mechanisms for
implementing sustainable construction, since in practice this is hampered by the lack of
alignment/disconnections
3.6. Discussion of the particular approaches invited to provide input in the thematic
subject
The following two presentations were given in this respect:

- The Built Environment and Biodiversity – Implications for Sustainability, by Professor Gabor
Vida, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and
- Towards a Sustainable Built Environment – Some Potential Applications of Ecological
Economics to Support European Policy Making, by Dr. Katharine N. Farrell, UFZ Centre for
Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle
Sustainable ecosystems thinking

The vision and recommendations arising from the presentation on sustainable ecosystems thinking
have been summarised in Chapter 2. Furthermore, the relevant suggestions are taken into account
in Chapter 5, Derived Sustainability Scenario Elements (SSEs).
Ecological Economics and Governance

Ecological economics offers some descriptive and normative perspectives to the understanding
and implementing of sustainable development for researchers and policy makers concerned with
economic processes embedded within the ecological processes that we often describe as ‘nature’.
Dr. Farrell of the Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig-Halle envisioned the transition
from the current view on production and consumption to the ecological economic approach
towards high level of sustainability (see below).
28
Figure 6 Approach to production and consumption systems according to the conventional and
the ecological economics school of thoughts
This same notion has already been described in other chapters therefore it is not discussed again.
The relevant recommendations and assumptions are taken into account in Chapter 5, Derived
Sustainability Scenario Elements (SSEs).
Furthermore, the specific position of the currently running research project Accountability and
Legitimacy of Governance Institutions that support Viable Environments (ALIVE) was outlined by
Dr. Farrell. The management and design of sustainable infrastructure and built environments is
one of the themes of this project; however, because the focus of the research, this discussion has
been based on policy making and political discourse. It was considered not appropriate to
recommend specific goals and targets (WHATs) for long-term sustainability strategies; such
specific desired outcomes were presumed to be publicly determined. Instead, the focus (within
ALIVE) is on identifying better practices and procedures for setting sustainability goals and targets
(HOWs).
In keeping with this view, an ecological political economy hypothesis is being tested in the ALIVE
research: new formal modes of inter-disciplinary multi-level government and governance that may
help improve both the scientific and political quality of the sustainability goals and targets being set.
Specific recommendations regarding one possible structure are currently being evaluated through
the ALIVE research, to see how robust and realistic they are.
Very provisional first data analysis and insights suggest that, while the robust ecological economics
derived recommendations may not be entirely realistic, their underlying ecological political
economy presumptions, regarding how sustainability planning decision-making processes function,
are plausible. In this respect, it is proposed that simultaneous attention is paid to the democratic
legitimacy and to the scientific robustness of infrastructure and built environment planning
processes.
29
4. Interactive paper board exercises on the first- and second days of
the workshop
After the presentations and the respective discussions on the major themes, the results of which
are summarised in the previous chapter, participating experts were asked to take part in interactive
paper board exercises on both days of the workshop. The results of the two paper board exercises
are summarised below.
First day
On the first day experts were “surveyed” about the desired future regarding some particular, pre-
defined dimensions of development with the help of four graphs (two dimensional Cartesian
coordinate systems). On the coordinates of the graphs particular dimensions of future development
(e.g. amount of transport infrastructure and amount of building stock) were indicated. Each of the
experts was asked to mark the desired direction of future development (e.g. increase / decrease in
the amount of transport infrastructure and at the same time increase / decrease in the amount of
building stock) as well as the scale of desired development with a single point or with a series of
points (an area or line) in the graphs. The following four graphs were used:
Graph A
x-coordinate: [dwelling and working space per capita]

y-coordinate: [life-cycle resource consumption per unit of dwelling and working space]
Graph B
x-coordinate: [urbanely concentrated versus rurally dispersed homes]

y-coordinate: [increase in the share of travel for the purpose of leisure versus in the share of
commuting to workplace]
Graph C
For the EU 15, “old member states”:
x-coordinate: [amount of transport infrastructure]

y-coordinate: [amount of building stock]
Graph D
For the EU 10-12, “new member states”:
x-coordinate: [amount of transport infrastructure]

y-coordinate: [amount of building stock]
The results of the exercises can be seen in Figures 7 to 10, next page. The figures “speak for
themselves” therefore no narrative description is provided. The particular dimensions and the
desired direction of development are referred in the next Chapter “derived sustainability scenario
elements”.
30
consumption per m
Life-cycle resource2
Increase
Decrease Increase
m2/capita dwelling
and working space
Decrease
Figure 7 Graph A
for labour
increases
Commuting
Urb an ly Ru rally
c o n c e n trate d h o m e s d is p e rs e d h o m e s
Travel for
increases
leisure
Figure 8 Graph B
31
Building stock
EU 15
Increase
Decrease Increase
Transport
infrastructure
Decrease
Figure 9 Graph C
Building stock
EU 10/12
Increase
Decrease Increase
Transport
infrastructure
Decrease
Figure 10 Graph D
32
Second day
At the end of day two participating experts were invited for a brainstorming and weighting exercise,
called the “crosshairs exercise”. In this exercise experts were first asked to identify a list of
supposedly most useful strategies, policies and instruments, which could be part of the
instrumental mix of the European Union towards sustainability in relation to the thematic field
“infrastructures/land use”. After compiling this list collectively, experts were asked to define the
relative importance of the listed strategies/policies by weighting them. The weighting of the listed
items was carried out individually, i.e. experts had been given a certain number of stickers, which
they could put on the listed items as “weights”, according to their individual preference.17.
This exercise was carried out with the help of a tree-structure diagram. The recommended
strategies and policies were represented by the “branches” of the diagram and all of them were
diverged from a central circle representing sustainable development as the apex (i.e. the ultimate
goal) of the listed strategies and policies.
Due to limitations in graphical representation possibilities as well as in available space in this
document the result of this exercise is now presented in a simpler, tabular way: the recommended
strategies and policies (i.e. the branches of the diagram) are listed in a table and shorted into three
main categories according on their relative importance given by the experts. The three posterior
defined categories are:
- potential actions considered of the highest importance (highest and high weights and
indicated in UPPER CASE BOLD in the table);
- potential actions of high importance (middle weight and indicated in bold and italics in the
table);
- potential actions of moderate importance (low weight and indicated in normal characters in
the table).
The results of the crosshairs exercise in the way described above are summarised in Table 6 next
page
17
33
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE EIA/SEA DIRECTIVES AND IN GENERAL THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK
DEVELOPMENT OF AN EU DIRECTIVE ON SUSTAINABLE PROCUREMENT
Development of an eco-design framework directive (relevant to all “products”, including

buildings)
Setting of standards for efficient and equitable (inter/intra generational) resource use
Development of extended SCR standards for public and private real estate management
Develop a joint strategy with rural development
Better monitor the effectiveness of EU policies
Better monitor the change of built environment
ENHANCED APPLICATION OF ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS, ESPECIALLY OF FUEL

TAXATION AND REFORMED LAND TAXATION
DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF BETTER INDICATORS THAN GDP (E.G., ISEW) AND
RESPECTIVELY CHANGED NATIONAL TREASURY RULES
Revisit investment structures, including private direct investment and EU structural funds
RETHINK THE LISBON STRATEGY
Revisit the EU constitutional reform from ecological perspectives
Introduce compulsory voting in the EU and replace EU Commission by an elective body
EDUCATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING, INCLUDING THE RAISING OF PUBLIC AWARENESS
Multilevel mainstreaming, including ecological footprint
Incentives for effective SDS
Table 6 The results of the “crosshairs” exercise on the second day
34
5. Derived Sustainability Scenario Elements (SSEs)
One of the ultimate goals of the workshop was to define “sustainability scenario elements, SSEs”
related to the FORESCENE activity and/or policy area “infrastructures and land use” in general and
in the pre-selected major themes of the workshop in particular. However, it is fair to say that SSEs
per se were rarely discussed during the presentations and/or in the background papers received.
Nor were SSEs discussed in more details during the workshop discussions than already presented
in the previous chapters, i.e. under the vision subchapters and in the subchapter on the paper
board exercise on the first day.
Therefore the following list of “derived” SSE cannot be regarded as a list based on consensus
amongst the participants but rather as the personal interpretation of presentations and discussions
on the workshop by the authors.
Derived SSEs related to the discussed overall assumptions / holistic views towards
sustainability
- ecological constrains to economic development are respected (i.e. the criteria of strong
sustainability is met);
- the internal and external conditions of sustainability18 are taken as boundary conditions to
any human and economic development;
- all new policies, decisions etc. respect / aim to achieve intra- and intergenerational justice;
- the concept of „natural capital“ constitutes a basis for all socio-economic plans and
decisions;
- artificial, man-made environments start mimicking the operation of natural eco-systems by
all respects 19;
- extreme income / wealth inequalities are phased out;
- autonomous subsistence based on income from own work becomes standard;
- GDP is not the measure of wealth anymore, the use of alternative measures such us
ISEW20 becomes norm;
- ethical investment becomes norm;
- internalisation of environmental and social external cost becomes a norm;
- rebound effects are challenged and finally tackled (e.g. by changes in lifestyles);
- public policy ensures that innovation is equally driven by economic-, ecologic- and social
aspects;
- risks and hazards to populations are lowered to manageable levels, unacceptable risks will
not be posed or transferred to other populations in time and space;
- access to information and public participation related to all issues that potentially affect
health and well-being becomes binding principle;
18
See more details in Chapter 2.
19
See more details in Chapter 2.
20
Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW)
35
- governance principles of precautionary, prevention, proximity, producer responsibility,
polluter/beneficiary pays, etc. prevail;
- rate of land consumption for crating artificial, human-made environments decreases until
eventually no more virgin land is consumed for human purposes, the “Refuse then Reduce
then Reuse then Recycle” principle prevails;
- multifunctional (e.g. for food, energy crops, tourism and natural habitat) optimisation of land
use becomes norm;
- loss of fertile soil gets reversed;
*
Derived SSEs related to Urban sprawl :
- deterioration of inner cities gets reversed;
- societal retreat and the decline of public place is reversed;
- concentration of poverty decreases;
- distribution of social, environmental and economic burdens gets more even.
Derived SSEs related to Brownfields/industrial regions*:
- land development gets diverted from greenfields to brownfields and no more greenfield
development will be possible without justifications measured up to robust sustainability
criteria;
- bio-energy production on abandoned industrial sites becomes norm.
Derived SSEs related to Transport infrastructure*:
- conventional engineering/technological and economic knowledge applied for the

development of transport infrastructure will gradually be replaced by “renewable transport
proficiency”, i.e. conventional knowledge will be integrated with spatial-, social-, and
environmental knowledge and renewed (i.e. reviewed) on a continuous basis;
- internal mechanisms that stabilise and/or intensify unsustainable development patterns will
be broken; and at the same time new internal mechanisms capable to bring the operation of
Europe’s transport system within the boundaries of sustainable development will be
created21;
- shift from supply side to demand side management in transport planning;
- shift from sectoral technologies towards service requirements of local, regional and
magistral (long distance) connections;
- integration of modes, of policies, of areas, of levels, of decision-makers of
planners/evaluators etc. with each other and with the conventional “supply side” measures
in transport planning;
- decrease in commuting-related energy consumption and no further increase in leisure
related energy consumption.
*
See also the land use related SSEs under the overall assumptions / holistic views section.
21
See more details under the „transport infrastructure” chapter.
36
Derived SSEs related to Resource management and the built environment:
- The principles of “Natural Capitalism” prevail:
- radical increase in the productivity of resource use;
- shift to biologically inspired production (biomimicry) with closed loops, no waste, and
no toxicity;
- shift in the business model away from the making and selling of "things" to providing
the service that the "thing" delivers;
- reinvestment in natural and human capital.
- Shifting of problems in space and time and in environmental pressure categories are
eliminated, life cycle thinking prevails (cradle to grave and cradle to cradle), optimized and
closed-loop resource flows are realized (e.g. the „Natural Capitalism” model) in which waste
is gradually eliminated until zero waste solutions becomes feasible by closing material
cycles and using renewable/recyclable materials/components;
- Decoupling achieved in absolute terms;
- The share of renewable resources is highly increased;
Derived SSEs related to Sustainable construction*:

- The “embedded view of sustainable construction”, i.e. when sustainable construction is
taken as a starting point, but at the same time considered in the larger context gathers
ground among policymakers and planners, designers etc.22
- Gradual shift towards zero CO2 emissions from new and existing buildings;
- Gradual shift towards zero waste to landfill from construction sites;
- Gradual shift towards 100% use of sustainable materials in construction activities;
- Gradual shift towards 100% use of whole life costing in the procurement of public and
private assets;
- Gradual shift towards 50% reduction in the use of water in both the construction and
operation of buildings;
- Gradual shift towards the application of high aesthetic and quality standards in all building
procurement;
- Gradual shift towards zero skill shortages amongst trainees and the existing workforce in
both the professions and trades;
- Gradual shift towards zero reported (actual) injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences
on construction sites;
- 100% commitments to fair trade and respect for people within the industry and its suppliers
on the long run.
*
See also the land use related SSEs under the overall assumptions / holistic views section.
22
See more details under the „sustainable construction” chapter.
37
PRIORITY 8.1
6. Annex I, The agenda of the workshop
FORESCENE
DEVELOPMENT OF A FORECASTING FRAMEWORK AND

SCENARIOS TO SUPPORT THE EU SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
www.forescene.net
Agenda
Thematic workshop on INFRASTRUCTURES/LAND USE
Budapest, 26-27 October 2006
Location: Infopark Budapest,
1117 Budapest, Infopark sétány 1., Web: www.infopark-budapest.hu
Organised by the Regional Environmental Center

for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)
FORESCENE partners:
Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (WI) – project coordinator
www.wupperinst.org
Lund University, Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS)
www.lucsus.lu.se
University of Nottingham, Centre for Environmental Management (UNOTT)
www.nottingham.ac.uk/geography
Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI, Vienna)
www.seri.at
University of Firenze, Agricultural and Land Economics Department (DEART)
www.deart.unifi.it
38
PRIORITY 8.1
Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)

www.rec.org E-mail: ForeScene@rec.org
39
PRIORITY 8.1
FIRST DAY, 26TH OCTOBER, 2006 – DEVELOPING A VISION FOR SUSTAINABILITY
9.00 Registration
9.30 Welcome and introduction session
Welcome
Jozsef Szlezak, REC
Presentation of the FORESCENE project and the structure/objectives of the
workshop, Dr. Stefan Bringezu, WI
Tour de table of participants, questions and answers
10.15 Presentation session I (chair: Robert Nemeskeri, REC)
Land Use & Urban Sprawl – Implications for Sustainability
Dr. Henning Nuissl, UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle
Coffee break
A Vision of Sustainable Transport Infrastructures in Europe
Dr. Tamas Fleischer, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Land Use in Industrial Regions – A Vision of Sustainability
Dr. Oliver Dilly, Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus
12.15 Questions and answers, discussion of session I
13.00 Lunch
14.00 Presentation session II (chair: Jozsef Szlezak,REC)
The Built Environment and Biodiversity – Implications for Sustainability
Prof. Gabor Vida, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
The Built Environment and the Use of Resources - A Vision of Sustainability
Robert Nemeskeri, REC
15.15 Questions and answers, discussion of session II, followed by coffee break
16.00 Break-out session
Elaboration of key long-term sustainability goals in small groups
Presentation of small group results by rapporteurs
17.15 Wrap-up of day 1 (Robert Nemeskeri, REC)
17.30 End of day 1
19.30 Dinner (see details in the attached document)
40
PRIORITY 8.1
Second day 27th October, 2006 – FRAMEWORK OF ESSENTIAL STRATEGIES AND MEASURES
TO REACH THE DESIRABLE FUTURE
9.00 Welcome and start of the day

Re-visiting the results of day 1 and outline of day 2
Robert Nemeskeri, REC
9.15 Presentation session III (chair: Jozsef Szlezak, REC)
Towards Sustainable Transport Infrastructures – Potential Policy Measures and
Actions in Europe
Prof. Angela Hull, Centre for Environment and Planning University of the West of
England
Brownfield versus Greenfield – Potential Policy Measures and Actions in Europe
Dr. Paul Nathanail, CABERNET Network & University of Nottingham
Coffee break
Towards Sustainable Land Use Patterns - Potential Policy Measures and
Instruments
Dr. Henning Nuissl, UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle
Towards a Sustainable Built Environment – Some Potential Applications of
Ecological Economics to Support European Policy Making
Dr. Katharine N. Farrell, UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle
11:45 Questions and answers, discussion of session III
12.45 Lunch
13.30 Presentation session IV (chair: Robert Nemeskeri, REC)
Towards Sustainable Construction – Potential Policy Measures and Actions in
Europe
Prof. Ian Cooper, University of Salford & Eclipse Research Consultants
Towards Sustainable Water Management – Potential Infrastructure Policies and
Actions in Europe, Mats Svensson, LUCSUS
14:45 Questions and answers and discussion of session IV, followed by coffee break
15.30 Break-out session
Integration of small group results and general discussion on Sustainability
strategies and measures
Presentation of small group results by rapporteurs
16.45 Wrap-up of key results
17.00 End of day 2
41

FORESCENE Budapest Summary Part 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

FORESCENE Budapest Summary Part 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FORESCENE Budapest Summary Part 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

THEMATIC WORKSHOP ON INFRASTRUCTURES/LAND USE

PART 1: SUMMARY REPORT

The objectives of the workshop

WHERE SHALL WE GO TO? - Developing a vision for sustainability (first day)

The participants and agenda of the workshop

The agenda of the workshop is included in Annex I of this report.

Sustainable development is by now a broadly accepted concept in science as well as in politics as

Figure 1 The systemic interrelationships of environment-, society- and economy according to

The internal (system-operational) condition of sustainability according to Dr Fleisher is that

Sustainable ecosystems thinking

DIVERSE DIVERSE NATURAL

heat, light air pollutants

Products and raw materials HUMAN products

Figure 2 Comparison of natural-, urban- and agro-ecosystems

Framework of values and norms at present and as desired in the future

PRESENT SITUATION (objectives, values, ALTERNATIVES – A VISION FRAMEWORK

Table 1 Present and alternative (envisioned) objectives, values and norms

The Helmholtz-concept concept of sustainability

3.1. Urban sprawl

Potential strategies and policy tools/instruments

Strategy Instruments for implementing strategy

3.2. Brownfields / industrial regions

Potential strategies and policy tools/instruments

3.3. Transport infrastructure

Potential strategies and policy tools/instruments

Direct Development/ Management Powers Information and Guidance

Table 4 Government tools in the UK: Implementation of transport policy

Resources Legal/ Regulatory Powers

Knowledge/ Skills / think-tanks Disability/ equal opportunities legislation

Departments11;: DfT DTI; DCLG; DEFRA Treasury value-for-money criteria

Direct Development/ Management Power Information and Guidance

Table 5 Government tools in the UK: Wider policy sector implementation

Potential strategies and policy tools/instruments

3.5. Sustainable construction

Increasing number of actors

Potential strategies and policy tools/instruments

Figure 5 A potential “policy toolbox” for sustainable construction in Europe

The following two presentations were given in this respect:

Sustainable ecosystems thinking

Ecological Economics and Governance

x-coordinate: [dwelling and working space per capita]

x-coordinate: [urbanely concentrated versus rurally dispersed homes]

x-coordinate: [amount of transport infrastructure]

x-coordinate: [amount of transport infrastructure]

DEVELOPMENT OF AN EU DIRECTIVE ON SUSTAINABLE PROCUREMENT

Development of an eco-design framework directive (relevant to all “products”, including

Develop a joint strategy with rural development

Better monitor the effectiveness of EU policies

Better monitor the change of built environment

ENHANCED APPLICATION OF ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS, ESPECIALLY OF FUEL

RETHINK THE LISBON STRATEGY

Revisit the EU constitutional reform from ecological perspectives

Introduce compulsory voting in the EU and replace EU Commission by an elective body

EDUCATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING, INCLUDING THE RAISING OF PUBLIC AWARENESS

Multilevel mainstreaming, including ecological footprint

Incentives for effective SDS

Table 6 The results of the “crosshairs” exercise on the second day

Derived SSEs related to Brownfields/industrial regions*: