SUSTAINABLE URBAN HOUSING AND ALTERNATIVE INDICATORS OF

WELL-BEING

Jessica Karhu . Suvi Nenonen

Researcher Senior Researcher
M.Sc. Ph.D.
Aalto University Aalto University
Built Environment Built Environment
Research Group (BES) Research Group (BES)
Finland Finland
jessica.karhu@tkk.fi suvi.nenonen@tkk.fi

Summary
Well-being in cities and urban environments
- Indicators for the quality of life, sustainable lifestyles

The Finnish Government has established a target of cutting down on environmental emissions by
at least 80% from the 1990 levels by 2050. Again research on customer behaviour indicates that
the growing awareness of environmental problems have led into real changes in the customers’
actions. The aim of this paper is to illustrate what sort of customers’ values and environmental
friendly habits can motivate a group of customers to take the role of building developers in order to
build a low energy and sustainable apartment building in the city centre of Helsinki. The objective
is also to demonstrate how these motives can be compared with the alternatives of the gross
domestic product, GDP, the indicators of well-being like Genuine Progress Indicator, Sustainable
Society Index and Happy Planet Index.

The aim of this article is to point out that the components of well-being indicators and the targets of
urban sustainable housing are connected and interacting.

The research approach is qualitative. This research is an explanatory case study about sustainable
urban housing. The sources of empirical data were customers´ memos written during this
sustainable housing project, semi structured interview and a literature study. Data were analysed
using content analysis and descriptive statistics.

The results of this article provide knowledge to the building developers and housing companies
about the significance of customer´s values and motives connected to sustainable preferences.
The results also describe a relation between the sustainable housing and the subjective
experience of well-being.

The findings show that the result of an alternative housing process can fulfil several indicators of
well-being with feasible additional cost for the customer. The findings also indicate that sustainable
housing investment does not differ remarkable form traditional housing investment.

Keywords: Sustainable housing, co-housing, communal housing, Genuine Progress Indicator,

Sustainable Society Index, Happy Planet Index
1. Introduction
The Finnish Government has established a target of cutting down on environmental emissions by
at least 80% from the 1990 levels by 2050. In order to achieve the goals, we have to focus on
energy efficient production in construction industry as well as to pay attention to increase the
environmental friendly behaviour among users of built environment. Also the importance of the
quality of everyday life has become crucial in peoples mindset. And residential housing is playing
one of the leading roles in this evolution. In Finland the residential housing is responsible for the
half of the CO2 equivalent t emissions [1] and indirectly residential housing by its location creates a
need for commutation that is producing more CO2 emissions.

Customer awareness on environmental issues is growing and values are chancing towards more
sustainable life. The importance of consumers´ decisions and customership in housing services is
growing. This phenomena still lacks frameworks for the industry transformation, and similarly the
actors required for production oriented system to be changed towards customer oriented approach
[2] So far a lot of effort has been put to understand customers as individuals. However, the
increasing amount of co-housing and living projects indicate, that the customers can also
perceived as a group of users, who have similar kind of needs and demands. Also the usability of
the built environment and residencies is related to the individual and social wellbeing [3] [4].

The demand of sustainable housing can be remarked on growing demand of low energy housing,
passive housing [5] and on the growth interest on co-housing. [6] Co-housing has always been an
alternative for traditional housing produced by large construction companies. But recently we can
remark a new interest on that form of home purchase. There are several examples where a group
of individual people has formed together a society with orientation to build a residence which fulfils
the sustainable values and the special needs of these groups. Some of these groups in Finland are
even taking a role and risks of a building developer but some building companies has started to
offer services to help customers to achieve their preferences without the enormous work that
belongs to a building project. Characteristic for these projects is a low level of energy consumption
and intensive control of buildings´ consumption of natural resources. Also these projects are from
the beginning planned to support the social interaction of the resident and the residents´ voluntary
work for the resident´s maintaining and comfortableness.

Jevons paradox states that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a
resource is used tends to increase the rate of consumption of that resource. Rees argues that
several factors contribute to Jevons' paradox. People may simply spend the money savings from
efficiency on more of the original commodity ('Let's add a floor to the original building plan!') [7] It is
an interesting question, where is the saturation point for residential space - how much space an
individual can effort and use reasonably.

Lawn states in his article that, lately ecological economists have been putting forward a ‘threshold
hypothesis’—the notion that when macroeconomic systems expand beyond a certain size, the
additional cost of growth exceeds the flow of additional benefits. [8] We can present an analogy
that urbanisation also can produce more costs than benefits when the urban system expand
beyond certain size. Or to be more precise in which point the everyday urban environment
expands certain natural level and begins to cause ill-being?

Report by the EU Commission on the Measurement of Economical Performance and Social

Progress identifies the limits of GDP as an indicator of economic performance and social progress,
including the problems with its measurement. One basis for this work was that there seems to be a
marked distance between standard measurement like economic growth and widespread
perceptions. This report noted that GDP is not wrong as such, but wrongly used. Commonly used
statistics may not understand phenomena with increasing impact on the well-being. For example
traffic jams may increase GDP as a result on the increased use of gasoline but decrease the
quality of life. Commission states that it has long been clear that GDP is an inadequate metric to
gauge well-being over time particularly in its economic, environmental, and social dimensions,
some aspects of which are often referred to as sustainability. [9] Some researchers [10] argue that
there is even less consensus on how well being should really be measured and if quantitative
measurements can be made at all. Nevertheless, efforts to find replacements are critical since
GDP forms the basis for important public policy decisions—i.e. those predicted to increase GDP
growth fare better while those shown to restrict GDP growth are often killed by political short-
sightedness.

The objective of his article is to highlight to interaction between indicators of wellness and
sustainable housing. The aim is also to point out that customers are these days ready to put
economical resources and personal efforts to achieve a residency that fulfil their values of
sustainability and needs of comfortable everyday life. The structure of this paper is first in the
introduction we describe the resent trend of sustainability and recent critic towards GDP´s
insufficiency to measure the well-being. In the second chapter we present the indicators. In the
third and fourth chapter we present co-housing projects and in the end our results and conclusions.

2. Indicators of well-being and sustainability

Recently and especially after publishing the Stiglizt Commission´s recommendations 2008 [9]
several different indexes has been launched in order to measure the national wellness, well-being
and sustainability. In this study we have discussed three of them; GPI, SSI and HPI. The criteria of
selecting these indicators to be treated were based on a literature study. For the criteria we used
broad distribution of the index or it has been used in several countries and it is using data collected
from longer time period. It measures not only a narrow sector of society but offers a general view
and has a relationship with build environment and housing. In the extend of this article it is not
possible to go deep to in to mechanism how these indicators are formed nor what are their
weakness or what critic they have confronted. However the overview of the mechanisms provides
a starting point to evaluate co-housing initiatives

2.1 Genuine Progress Indicator GPI

Based to seminar work of Daly and Cobb in year 1989 there have been several attempts to
develop alternative national income accounting systems that address to the deficiencies of GDP.
These systems measure the so called “green” GDP. One of the most popular green GDP systems
is the genuine Progress Indicator GPI. There three kind of measurement that GPI attempt to
undertake: welfare equivalent income, sustainable income and net social profit. [10] For Finland
the GPI was estimated at the first time 2008. The result of the period that reviewed was similar
than in other develop countries and showed that the individual happiness and wellbeing have not
grown although the gross product have grown at the same time period. GPI index illustrates that
the wellbeing in Finland grown until year 1989 but has depressed on the level of 70thies by year
2008. At the time the GP has grown from 20 000 Euros to over 30 000 Euros per capita [11].

2.2 Sustainable Society Index SSI

The overall conclusion of developers of sustainable Society Index Van der Kerk and Manuel is that
none of the existing indexes seem to fit our needs completely. In other words, not one gives a
complete and good insight into all relevant aspects of sustainability in a transparent, simple and
easily understandable way, showing at a glance to what extent a society is sustainable or not.
Based on that reasoning they developed a new index, based on a set of indicators in accordance
with the definition of sustainability of Brundtland+ Commissions. They cluster the indicators of SSI
in five groups: Personal Development, Clean Environment, Well-Balanced Society, Sustainable
Use of Resources and Sustainable World. [12]

2.3 Happy Planet Index HPI

The happy planet index was launched in July 2006 as a critic against GPD. A successful society is
one that can support good lives that don’t cost the Earth. After the definition the HPI measures
progress towards this target – the ecological efficiency with which happy and healthy lives are
supported. In essence, the HPI is an efficiency measure: the degree to which long and happy lives
(life satisfaction and life expectancy are multiplied together to calculate happy life years) are
achieved per unit of environmental impact. [13]
3. Indicators of well-being and sustainable urban housing
In this research we have made some basic assumptions based on literature study how
circumstances of residential housing are interacting with some of the criteria of these indexes
under research. On table 1 we have described the components of three indicators DPI, SSI and
HPI. In this research we studied the components of wellness indicators and selected and pointed
out those that interact with sustainable housing. Those components are bolded in table below. We
approached these criteria from resident´s point of view and considered those that a resident can
affect with individual choices. We clustered them in five categories. We explain our statement
between chosen components and circumstances in sustainable housing and the five categories
later in this chapter.

Table 1 The components of the indicators

GPI SSI HPI

A- Consumption 1 Healthy Life Average life expectancy at birth

“All things considered, how
B – Personal Consumption 2 Sufficient Food satisfied are you with your life as a
whole these days?”
C – Income Distribution Index 3 Sufficient to Drink GDP per capita
D – Weighted Personal
4 Safe Sanitation CO2 emissions per capita
Consumption
E – Value of Household Work and
5 Education Opportunities Level of urbanisation
Parenting
F – Value of Higher Education 6 Gender Equality Size of industrial sector
G – Value of Volunteer Work 7 Air Quality Population density
H – Services of Consumer
8 Surface Water Quality
Durables
I – Services of Highways and Streets 9 Land Quality
J – Cost of Crime 10 Good Governance
K – Loss of Leisure Time 11 Unemployment
L – Cost of Underemployment 12 Population Growth
M – Cost of Consumer Durables 13 Income Distribuation
N – Cost of Commuting 14 Public Debt
O – Cost of Household Pollution
15 Waste Recycling
Abatement
16 Use of Renewable Water
P – Cost 0f Automobile Accidents
Resources
17 Consumption of Renewable
Q – Cost 0f Water Pollution
Energy
R – Cost 0f Air Pollution 18 Forest Area
S – Cost 0f Noise Pollution 19 Preservation of Biodiversity
T – Loss of Wetlands 20 Emission of Greenhouse Gases
U – Loss of Farmland 21 Ecological Footprint
V – Loss of Primary Forests and
22 International Cooperation
Damage from Logging Roads
W – Depletion of Nonrenewable
Energy Resources
X – Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Damage
Y – Cost of Ozone Depletion
Z – Net Capital Investment
3.1 Component of the indicators and residential housing

Quality and healthiness of life

1 Healthy Life, Average life expectancy at birth
Buildings we stay are affecting to our health in several ways. Materials, air condition and other
physical conditions have after several studies [] a strong impact to our healthiness. In sustainable
housing these physical conditions are aimed to be as healthy as possible.

Sustainable consumption choices

D – Weighted Personal Consumption, H – Services of Consumer Durables M – Cost of Consumer
Durables
Buying a sustainable home resident can suppose those consumer durables like refrigerators are
as long lasting and low-energy consuming as possible. Sustainable choices of personal
consumption to housing are an essential motivation to construction companies to build more
sustainable housing.

Possibilities of community based living

E – Value of Household Work and Parenting, G – Value of Volunteer Work “All things considered,
how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?”
Sustainable housing and co-housing are aiming to give possibilities to residents to share tasks and
household works and to develop social contacts.

Daily travelling
N – Cost of Commuting, Level of urbanisation, population density
Sustainable hojusing by definition is aiming to diminish the cost of commuting by location or by
other solutions like car-share possibilities. Sustainable housing is also aiming to build urbanisation
that is comfortable for residents and where the built environment supports pedestrianised traffic.

Emissions and ecological footprint

O – Cost of Household Pollution Abatement, Q – Cost 0f Water Pollution, R – Cost 0f Air Pollution,
S – Cost 0f Noise Pollution. 7 Air Quality, 8 Surface Water Quality, 9 Land Quality V – Loss of
Primary Forests and Damage from Logging Roads, W – Depletion of Nonrenewable Energy
Resources X – Carbon Dioxide Emissions Damage, Y – Cost of Ozone Depletion, 20 Emission of
Greenhouse Gases, 21 Ecological Footprint, CO2 emissions per capita
All the planning of sustainable housing is aiming to reduce the ecological footprint of housing. In
order to achieve this goal sustainable housing is reducing the energy and water consumption,
using renewable materials, reducing all harmful emissions and taking account the biodiversity that
is affected by construction.

As can be concluded the major part of the components have an interactions with housing. This
natural conclusion can be explain with the significant role of the built environment in the ecological
footprint of the urban area but also by the significant role of home for an individual as a place of
rest and self-renewal.

3.2 Happiness, social capital and co-housing

Although happiness is a very subjective experience several studies have demonstrated a strong
correlation between happiness and physical well-being. Scientists Steptoe, Wardle, and Marmot
have demonstrated that an individual’s subjective experience of happiness corresponds with
numerous positive health outcomes. [15] Veenhoven completed an extensive survey of studies
regarding the relationship between happiness and physical well-being and found that there is a
significant relationship between happiness and longevity. Applying these studies, O´Brian is
analysing the questions in her article, is it possible to create communities, towns, and cities that
make people happier sustainably and thus contribute to public and environmental health and well-
being? She is concluding that sustainable happiness is a concept that can be used by individuals
to guide their actions and decisions on a daily basis; at the community level, it reinforces the need
to genuinely consider social, environmental and economic indicators of well-being so that
community happiness and well-being are sustainable. [16]
In Finland Hyyppä has studied the relationship between the social capital and healthiness. He and
his colleagues argued based on several studied they went through that social capital contributes to
healthiness. Even if it is difficult to specify all the elements of social capital can we count in it social
networks, organizational activities and good neighbourliness, things that we call togetherness. [17]

The Association of communal housing gives six characteristics that are common to co-housing.
Those characteristics are 1. participatory process, 2. Neighbourhood design, 3. Common facilities,
4. Resident management, 5. Non-hierarchical structure and decision-making and 6. Not shared
community economy. [6] For an individual customer co-housing is an alternative way to provide a
residency outside of the existing markets. Co-housing inhabitants has to agree on plans, design,
quality and materials of the new housing. One primary aspect is to agree commonly on social code
of the housing on other common goals. This kind of groups can be building developers by
themselves or they can hire a building company or consultant. At least in Finland a half dozen
construction companies offers services for co-housing projects. Also the city of Helsinki provides
support to co-housing project.

4. Communal housing project – Home in the City

This research is an explanatory case study. The description of this case study in this article is
based on the secondary data. During the second phase of research, this fall, will be collected the
primary data based on interviews and questionnaire. The background of this research is in the user
oriented housing research and the other hand on the heterogeneous field of the sustainability
research. The aim of this research is to understand the chancing attitude and demands of urban
inhabitants and how this links to the indicators of well-being. Especially the aim is to study how
individual sustainable values can steer inhabitants housing choices and what are the criteria of
sustainable housing from inhabitants´ point of view and are these criteria same as the criteria of
the well-being indicators. The means of the data collection are orientating interviews, writings of
the inhabitants, internet –pages and observation of the events of this organisations. Based on this
research we categorised the elements of sustainable housing thinking from the inhabitants´ point
of view to the individual feeling of well-being, to the individual experience of the easiness of the
everyday life and to the consciences of the environmental friendliness of own housing and to the
every day transport solutions.

The case called Home in The City – project is an urban communal housing project in the city
centre of Helsinki. In this project a group of people has established an association 2007 in order to
build a house in the new urban area Jätkäsaari close to the city centre of Helsinki and to move in
that house 2013. Today that association has around a hundred members. [18]

Home in the City association announces that they seek a life and housing where public transport
and services are close by, in the city centre and close to the culture events, without physically
hindrance, peacefully in own home but close to friends and relatives, without a fear of lonely old
age, in a community where the children has lots of trustful adults around, in everyday life where
nobody has to be alone without own will, in a sustainable house, in a house where they have
planned themselves and with can be modified, in a beautiful and well planned house, which has
cosy spaces for hobbies and for spent time together and in a house which takes account the new
urban possibilities. [18]

In the year 2009 the city of Helsinki vacated a site from a new urban area for the Home in the City.
The association hired an architect to draw and plan the house together with committed members.
They decided also to operate themselves as building developers and use some consultancy
services when needed. When writing this, the aim is to start the construction of this house with 60
apartments later this year. [18]

5. Methods
This research methods used in this explanatory case study are:
• Literature review
 • Interviews
• Content analysis of documents

The data is gathered by interviews and from secondary documents: memos written by the Home of
the City –association´s members during this process and we analysed their www-sites.

We have conducted three different semi-structured theme interviews in order to find out residents’
motives and expectations toward this kind of communal housing project. The objective was to find
interviewees with three perspectives to sustainable housing: providing, using and managing
sustainable housing. The sample included one consultant and provider of sustainable housing, one
future resident and a chief executive of a large building manager company. The theme of the
interviews was the residents´ motive and requirements to sustainable housing.

We analysed also media and which attributes of sustainable housing have risen up in the public
discussion. By participating to some event of the Home of the City -association we got some
insights for the content of the project

The data was analysed by using content analysis. We utilized the selective coding [19] and
together with the knowledge collected from the literature study we formed the categories based on
the central category of in there an interaction between the measurement units are the wellness
indicators and the targets of sustainable housing. We found subcategories linked to the central
category Quality and healthiness of life, Sustainable consumption choices, Possibilities of
community based living, Daily travelling and Emissions and ecological footprint.

6. Results
As results of our research we found that component of the indicators and the “dreams” of the
Home in the City are correlated. Also based on the literature study we found that sustainable
communal housing seeks to fulfil the requirements if well-being. Residents´ motive to invest more
in sustainable communal housing both economically and psychologically is to obtain a more
comfortably, socially, sustainably and healthy everyday life. Urban sustainable housing tries to
solve the problems like increased traffic needs, emissions and lack of nature that urban sprawl
creates.

The aim of this article was to point out that the components of well-being indicators and the targets
of urban sustainable housing are connected and interacting in many ways. We explained that more
than half of the components depending on indicator are somehow linked to residential housing. We
showed that those components of well-being indicators that are interacting with housing can be
clustered in five groups and our case study and other sustainable housing projects described in the
literature are giving means to get good measurements results when using these indicators. The
five groups are:

1. Quality and healthiness of life

In sustainable housing materials, air condition and other physical conditions are aimed to be as
healthy as possible.

2. Sustainable consumption choices

Investing to sustainable house is a customer´s consumption choice that is based on
sustainable consuming values.

3. Possibilities of community based living

Sustainable housing and co-housing are aiming to give possibilities to residents to share tasks
and household works and to develop social contacts.

4. Daily travelling
Sustainable housing is aiming to diminish the cost of commuting by location or by other
solutions like car-share possibilities. Sustainable housing is also supporting pedestrianised
traffic.
 5. Emissions and ecological footprint
All the planning of sustainable housing is aiming to reduce the ecological footprint of housing.
In order to achieve this goal sustainable housing is reducing the energy and water
consumption, using renewable materials, reducing all harmful emissions and taking account
the biodiversity that is affected by construction

7. Conclusions
Sustainable communal housing seems to increase the individual well-being measured by these
studied indexes. Also the subjective experiences support that. But only further research can show
evidences if this is really happening in reality and by what kind of causal interaction.

To the housing sector and industry it is important to develop products and services that can be
adapted to new demands of sustainable housing. Those demands are linked to capabilities to plan
housing together with future residents and to improved knowledge of healthy and sustainable
materials and to develop quality of construction manners.

References
[1] ERA17 –report, Finnish Ministry of Environment, expert´s working group, 2010
[2] KÄRNÄ, S., “Concepts and Attributes of Customer Satisfaction in the Construction”, Doctoral
dissertation, TKK-R-DISS-2. Helsinki University of Technology, 2009. ISSBN 978-952-248-
132-0.
[3] BLAKSTAD, S., LINDAHL, G. & NENONEN, S. “User-oriented Benchmarking for Usability of
Real Estate The REBUS research project” –REBUS-project Report (c), 2010.
[4] KARHU, J. & NENONEN, S. “Sustainable housing – how facility services of the low-energy
building concept can support sustainable housing and resident´s sustainable behavior.”
International Ecce Conference, Euroinfra 2009, Helsinki, Finland, October 14-15., 2009. 12 p
[5] NENONEN, S,, TUOMAALA, P., HELJO, J., JUNNONEN, J-M. & KARHU, J., “Different
ways to develop green housing” SB10 Finland, Sustainable Community - BuildingSMART,
Espoo, 22-24.9.2010., RIL, Finnish Association of Civil Engineers., 2010
[6] THE ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNAL HOUSING, http://www.cohousing.org/
[7] REED, “Jevons' paradox.” Elsevier - Ecological Economics
[8] LAWN P.A., “A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare
(ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes”, Elsevier - Ecological
Economics, 2002 pp105-118.
[9] “Report by the Commission on the measurement of Economic Performance and Social
Progress”. 2008.
[10] TALBERTH, J., COBB, C. & SLATTERY, N., “The_Genuine_Progress_Indicator 2006”,
Redefining Progress, pp. 31.
[11] Tilastokeskus - Mitä on hyvinvointi? Kuntapuntari, vol 3, 2005.
[12] Van der KERK, G., MANUEL, A.,: “A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: The SSI
— the Sustainable Society Index”, Elsevier - Ecological Economics, 2008, pp. 228 – 242.
[13] NEW ECONOMICS FOUNDATION (NEF), “Happy Planet Index 2.0”, 2006.
[14] STEPTOE, A., WARDLE, J., & MARMOT, M., “Positive Affect and Psychological Processes
Related to Health”, British Journal of Psychology, vol. 13, 2008, pp. 744 -753.
[15] VEENHOVEN “Healthy happiness: effects of happiness on physical health and the
consequences for preventive health care”, Journal of Happiness Studies Volume 9, Number
3, 449-469, 2008.
[16] HYYPPÄ, M., “Kuorossa elämä pitenee”, Doctoral dissertation,University of Helsinki, 2001.
[17] Koti Kaupungissa – Hem i Stan –internet source, http://www.hemistan.fi
[18] STRAUSS, A., AND CORBIN, J., “Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory” (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.,1998.